Same Old Same Old - Government Like Father-Knows Best!

Government logic.










This image tells a lot about out nation's future if current spending continues and I suspect it will because the Democrat agenda is to wrestle control of the public sector, locate its control in D.C. so we can benefit from government efficiency.

You have two minutes to read this and vote! This is American Democracy at work. No wonder Iraqis have doubts.



And we have decided to take a back seat. This is only the beginning. The nation's debt will restrain its ability to lead in the future. Our nation lacks fiscal discipline, visionary leadership. But we have plenty of Liberals who love to cripple Capitalism because it is so evil.(See 1 and 1a below.)


Turkey throws its lot in with Iran? (See 2 below.)


The egalitarian syndrome cripples the mind. Former Mayor Koch still believes logic should dictate decisions - how un-PC. (See 3 and 3a below.)


Netanyahu goes from country to country telling all he is willing to talk to anyone without pre-conditions. Of course without pre-condition is the killer because Arabs only negotiate after they have gotten all they want before they negotiate. Then when they negotiate they seek more than what they have already gotten. (See 4 below.)


Dick



1)ALL EXCERPTS FROM THE CURRENT HOUSE BILL ARE IMPORTANT, NOT JUST THE HIGHLIGHTED ONES.
HOW DO YOU LIKE THE ONE FROM PAGE 59? Little gems from the Health Care Bill:

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll

• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll

• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.

• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!

• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.

• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. • Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?

• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.

• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services. This is a frightening piece of legislation. If this passes the U.S. officially enters into an "Orwellian" state.

What if I don’t want a National Health ID card? And this is why Obama, Pelosi, Waxman, et al wanted to rush Obamacare through congress before anybody had a chance to read it.



1a)America Leaves Itself Behind: A world of trade deals without the U.S.


President Obama heads for Asia this week to talk about U.S. economic recovery and reform, and one theme that we expect he'll hear from Asian leaders is this: America is leaving itself behind as the rest of the world tries to liberalize trade.

The numbers tell the story. At least 266 bilateral or regional trade deals are in force, according to the World Trade Organization, and there are roughly 100 more of which the WTO has not yet been formally informed. The U.S. is a party to only five of the 64 trade pacts that have taken effect since 2005—with Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, Oman and Peru.

.In contrast, eight of those 64 deals involve the European Union (plus a round of EU expansion) and Japan has signed nine. Overall the U.S. has trade deals with only 17 countries including Canada and Mexico under Nafta. The EU has struck 29 deals on trade ranging from customs unions to larger free-trade agreements with 40 economies.

Of the deals the WTO knows about, an average of seven took effect each year in the five years after the WTO's founding in 1995. For 2004-2008, the annual average rose to 15. Another 12 have kicked in this year. New Zealand and Malaysia signed a pact last week, for instance, and China and India are in talks. Oh, and there's also the newly signed EU-Korea trade deal, and the one signed last year between Canada and Colombia.

These deals are proliferating for many reasons. Some countries are losing patience with the Doha round of global trade talks that has dragged on for eight years. Others view bilateral deals as a way of liberalizing beyond what Doha would accomplish—including areas like intellectual-property protection. These deals can also firm up alliances or build political influence, which is one reason China is aggressively pursuing trade deals with its neighbors.

The danger is that U.S. companies could find themselves on the wrong side of deals negotiated among other countries. The EU-South Korea pact, for example, will tear down almost all remaining tariff barriers between the two sides. It will also address such technical barriers as the excessive safety standards that Seoul has long used to block imports, and it will open Korea to European services. The U.S. has long tried to address these hurdles so American companies could gain better access to the world's 13th-largest economy. The EU is now beating Washington to the punch—largely by copying the trade deal the Bush Administration negotiated with Seoul but that Congress refuses to ratify.

The same holds for Canada's deal with Colombia. That deal eliminates Colombia's average 12% tariffs on nonagricultural goods from Canada; U.S. exporters will still have to pay those tariffs even as Colombians keep tariff-free access to the U.S. under an earlier agreement. Over time Canadian farmers will gain tariff-free access to Colombia for most of their agricultural exports while farmers in Iowa or Nebraska will be stuck with tariffs of between 5% and 80%.

Bilateral trade deals are far from ideal as a way to promote global growth. Far better for governments to lower their own trade barriers unilaterally to all comers, or for all governments to sign a multilateral deal like the Doha round. A complex web of bilateral and regional trade deals can saddle businesses with the costs of complying with multiple sets of rules. This "spaghetti bowl" approach also distorts economies to the extent that businesses make trade and investment decisions based more on where they can get trade preferences than on the highest return on capital.

But when the U.S. sits on the sidelines, the rest of the world is going to find its own trading way, however imperfect. The nearby table shows some of the benefits U.S. companies will be missing.

A start to getting the U.S. back in the game would be for Congress to ratify the pending deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Mr. Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk need to rethink their emphasis on trade "enforcement," which is code for introducing higher barriers, and instead renew the push for more deals. Mr. Obama could also become a leading voice pushing for progress on Doha. Especially as other countries expand their own trading opportunities, the costs of Washington dithering are growing every day.



2)Erdogan promises Iran Turkish intelligence aid against Israel


In the secret part of their talks in Tehran on Oct. 28, military sources reveal Turkish prime minister Tayyep Recep Erdogan and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck military cooperation deals which promised Iran Turkish military intelligence and air force assistance against a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear sites.

Their understandings have bound Turkish to pass intelligence data to Tehran on potential Israeli preparations for a strike and on US military movements in the Middle East for providing backup. Sources report that the details finalized in meetings between the Turkish and Iranian military specialists in Istanbul Monday, Nov. 9, were due to be sealed by presidents Abdullah Gul and Ahmadinejad Tuesday. The Iranian president is to be in Turkey as guest of the Islamic Conference.

The Turkish prime minister has not only buried his country's longstanding military and intelligence ties with Israel but climbed aboard the adversarial axis confronting the Jewish state. Turkey has agreed to round out the forward surveillance outposts encircling Israel's borders: Hamas from the southwest in Gaza, Syria in the east, Lebanon in the north and now Turkey from the northwest. Tehran is banking on this encirclement for early warning of an approaching Israeli strike and any supportive American movements.

According to Western intelligence sources in Ankara, heads of the Turkish army objected to their government's strategic turn to Iran and the cutoff of its ties with Israel. However its pro-Islamic leaders, which have gradually eased the army out of policymaking, have forced them to accept operational ties with the military of an anti-Western Middle Eastern nation as being in the nation's best interests.

Erdogan's most compelling argument is that President Barack Obama's secret proposal for Iran to deposit 400 kilos of its enriched Iran in Turkey for safekeeping in charge of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, had elevated Turkey to an enhanced role as a broker between the US and Iran, sanctioned by Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei. If Turkey, a member of NATO, was able to gain the Iranian regime's trust, the Turkish prime minister maintained, it was only thanks to the military understandings he reached in Tehran.

Military sources report that word of the Turkish-Iranian military collaboration deal landed with shocking effect in Washington and Jerusalem. They had not forewarned by their intelligence services that Erdogan was willing to go as far as this to ally

3)Egalitarian Syndrome
By Professor Paul Eidelberg



A propos of the Muslim massacre at Fort Hood and the media’s failure to fault Islam for this massacre, I am updating an 1999 article of mine. I invite readers to think about the educators



We boast of these universities, even though they produce so many moral idiots. I mean men and women stultified by the academic doctrine of moral or cultural relativism. Because it is this doctrine that prompts “politically correct” fools to hire Muslims to serve on US military bases and even head the US Department of Homeland Security. I am speaking of a doctrine that has corrupted even the President of the United States, a doctine that prompts him to turn a blind eye toward Muslims or Arabs who call “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”



What is even more fundamental, I invite readers to think about the normless democracy now prevalent in the United States, a democracy whose cardinal principles, equality and freedom, no longer have rational and ethical constraints. America is so proud of this democracy, not knowing it is self-destructing vis-à-vis a religion whose deity exalts death.



This said, I turn to the article I wrote in 1999, whose philosophical source is my critique of the American education which appeared in the Congressional Record, Senate July 31, 1968.

Some 1.25 million Arabs are citizens of Israel. Most deny Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state. These Arabs do not suffer from the egalitarian syndrome that dominates Israel’s Jewish elites.


The egalitarian syndrome – I have elsewhere called it “demophrenia” – has not been studied by modern psychology. This democratic syndrome impairs the ability to make moral judgments and to use political authority with a good conscience. It makes the use of might in defense of right suspect in the minds of egalitarians. Those infected by this mental deficiency are prone to political paralysis when confronted by threats requiring them to assert themselves or to use power over others. Recall how the Shamir Government was incapable of using adequate force to suppress the intifada. The egalitarian syndrome led to Oslo.


Some will object by saying the Government of Israel is afraid of adverse world opinion. But fear of world opinion is itself symptom of the egalitarian syndrome. When Arabs screamed “Slaughter the Jews!” they didn’t give a hoot for world opinion, and precisely because their immunity system has not been impaired by the egalitarian syndrome.



The egalitarian syndrome stupefies the mind; it destroys moral outrage and honor. This is why Israeli prime ministers released and armed Arab terrorists, i.e., experienced Jew-killers, to provide for Israel’s security! We have here a profound mental disorder. One wonders why psychiatrists haven’t flocked to Israel to study this unique phenomenon.

Those afflicted by the egalitarian syndrome tend to disregard the implacable hostility of Muslims toward Israel. This has inhibited Israeli governments from exercising Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. Such is the influence of the egalitarian syndrome that even the Likud has accommodated itself to “Post-Zionism”! One may even say that the Right has ceased to exist in Israel as a political force.



To be sure, the most intractable strain of the egalitarian syndrome will be among left-wingers, Israel’s blind-deaf-mutes par excellence. Their thoughts and attitude toward the Arab-Jewish conflict are colored by the Marxist notion that human conflict is rooted not in some defect of human nature, such as the lust for wealth or power, but rather in the penury of nature at large. Nature is miserly: it does not provide enough for human needs.



Hence, to overcome human conflict, it is not necessary to perfect human nature, but to conquer external nature, that is, to overcome the economic scarcity and inequality that drives men and nations to war. [Enter Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu.] and of course modern science and technology now make the idyllic state of universal peace possible, beginning, of all places, in the Middle East!



In other words, if all Arabs had indoor toilets and washing machines, VCRs and Volvos, PCs and Internet, that would mark the end of the Arab-Jewish conflict. Or so many leftists suggest. [I have personally heard the equivalent even from the lips of Netanyahu!]



Despite their “sophistication,” these egalitarians do not and cannot take Islam seriously. Like Marxists, they regard ideologies as the “superstructure” of material forces. Change the economic or technological infrastructure of the Arabs and their thoughts and attitudes about war and Israel will change correspondingly. In other words, Mus=ims can be bought.



The egalitarian syndrome—a c=nsequence of moral relativism—closes the mind to the malevolence and violence permeating the ethos of Islam. This syndrome cannot be overcome by logic=or even by empirical evidence. The West needs to overcome its relativism; i= must drastically reform non-judgmental social sciences and humanities. This requires nothing less than a political revolution: a transformation from a normless to a normative democracy, one whose government is not silent about evil and ready to act vigorously against it.

3a)Common Sense Says Major Hasan Was a Terrorist
By Ed Koch

The U.S. Army and President Barack Obama are understandably seeking desperately to prevent U.S. public opinion from reaching any conclusion with respect to the motive of Major Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 12 soldiers and one civilian, and wounded 28 soldiers and one civilian last week at Fort Hood in Texas. In the court of public opinion, subject to change based on hearings to be conducted on the subject by U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, Major Hasan has been found guilty of engaging in a terrorist act. Many factors have brought the public to that conclusion.

According to The Wall Street Journal of November 9: "Maj. Hasan, a U.S.-born Muslim of Jordanian and Palestinian ancestry, was slated to deploy to Afghanistan in November. Some witnesses told investigators that he shouted 'Allahu Akbar,' Arabic for 'God is great,' before he opened fire on the unarmed soldiers waiting for medical treatment Thursday." That is often the cry of Muslim suicide bombers.

The New York Times of November 9, in examining the actions of Major Hasan, provided the following description regarding what took place after he entered the hall where he began shooting.

"He bowed his head for several seconds, as if praying, stood up and drew a high-powered pistol. 'Allahu akbar,' he said - 'God is great.' And he opened fire. Within minutes he had killed 13 people."

"Major Hasan bought the gun used in the massacre last summer, days after arriving at Fort Hood."

"In recent years, he had grown more and more vocal about his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tortured over reconciling his military duties with his religion."

"He complained bitterly to people at his mosque about the oppression of Muslims in the Army."

"Around 2004, Major Hasan started feeling disgruntled about the Army, relatives said. He described anti-Muslim harassment and sought legal advice, possibly from an Army lawyer, abut getting a discharge."

"Federal authorities were looking into whether there was any interaction between Mr. Hasan and an American-born imam known for giving fiery speeches at a mosque in Northern Virginia that Mr. Hasan attended in 2001. Mr. Hasan attended the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., when Anwar Al-Awlaki was the imam there, but it is not clear what influence Mr. Awlaki's rhetoric may have had on Mr. Hasan. "

"During his time at Walter Reed and the uniformed Services University, Major Hasan also became increasingly vocal in his opposition to the wars. He knew much about the harsh realities of combat from having counseled returning soldiers, and he was deeply concerned about having to deploy. But over the past five years, he also began openly opposing the wars on religious grounds."

"A former classmate in the master's degree program said Major Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation about a year ago in an environmental health seminar titled, 'Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam.'"

"But he was still wrestling with the quandary of being a Muslim officer in an Army fighting other Muslims. He invited Osman Danquah, the co-founder of the mosque, to dinner at Ryan's restaurant and asked him how he should counsel young Muslim soldiers who might have objections to the war."

"The night before the shooting, he had dinner with Mr. Reasoner and said he felt that he should not go to Afghanistan. 'He felt he was supposed to quit,' Mr. Reasoner said. 'In the Koran, it says you are not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christians, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.'"

I believe the burden of proof has shifted to those in and out of government who believe the public should withhold its opinion on whether Hasan was a terrorist or simply deranged. I have concluded that he was a terrorist.

I also believe that the U.S. Army should allow Muslims, who consider fighting other Muslims a violation of their religious beliefs, to opt out and be sent to other regions and combat zones. In Word War II, I believe Japanese American soldiers were sent to the European Theater of Operations. It is noteworthy that Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran have no religious problem in killing each other. They do it every day, sadly in large numbers. Muslim women and children are also injured and killed by Muslim suicide bombers entering local markets before blowing up themselves to wreak the most havoc.

The eight-year war between Iraq and Iran left an estimated million deaths and serious injuries. Sunni killed Shiites and Shiites killed Sunnis. They also killed one another on holy Muslim holidays like Ramadan while western countries like the U.S. and Great Britain were importuned to delay their attacks out of respect for Ramadan.

The Times of November 10 pointed out:

"The imam whom Major Hasan made contact with is an American citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. He wrote on Monday on his English-language Web site that Major Hasan was 'a hero.' The cleric said, 'He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people'"

Finally, the same Times article made the point that the radical imam lied with his comments on prior terrorist acts:

"After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Awlaki was quoted as disapproving of such violence and was portrayed as a moderate figure who might provide a bridge between Islam and Western democracies. But since leaving the United States in 2002 for London and later Yemen, Mr. Awlaki has become, through his Web site, www.anwar-alawlaki.com, a prominent proponent of militant Islam."

He surely is not the only terrorist to similarly so lie.

U.S. public opinion is far too intelligent to jump to a conclusion, but it is also intelligent enough to understand when it is being conned by our own government.

It seems to me that political correctness has reached the point where the FBI and the U.S. Army have allowed it to influence their investigations in life and death situations.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.


4)Netanyahu to Sarkozy: Immediate talks with Syria


After Paris meeting, Israeli, French leaders say they agreed to 'deploy all efforts' toward 'immediately reviving the peace process'; also discuss Iranian nuclear program.



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have tried to find ways to revive Mideast peace efforts but announced no progress on their differences over Jewish settlements.



During the meeting Netanyahu reportedly told Sarkozy that Israel was willing to launch immediate peace negotiations with Syria with no preconditions.



The two leaders met for more than an hour and a half in Paris on Wednesday. When they emerged, they shook hands but did not speak to reporters.



In a joint statement, they said they "agreed to deploy all efforts" toward "immediately reviving the peace process."



They also discussed international efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program, and Netanyahu lauded France's firm position on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.



A member of Netanyahu's entourage called the meeting "warm and cordial," adding that the Israeli PM briefed Sarkozy on his recent meeting with US President Barack Obama and the efforts to jumpstart the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.



Earlier Wednesday, Netanyahu met with French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde and suggested that Israel and France cooperate on two main issues: Solar energy and water desalination.

The PM is not scheduled to meet with Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, but members of his entourage stressed that this is not indicative of strained relations between the two, adding that they are expected to meet during Kouchner's trip to Israel next week.



On Tuesday Kouchner said France fears that Israel no longer desires a Middle East peace deal, adding that Paris remained deeply opposed to Jewish settlement building in the West Bank.

Free To Think For Ourselves- Heaven Forbid!

From a friend, a fellow memo reader and former moderate-centrist. I have watched him change and become discouraged in the past year.

His idea did not tale 2000 pages either. To his idea I say AMEN!(See 1 below.)

I am not sure the author of this article is correct but he comes very close to conveying the sentiments of many. (See 2 below.)

Mark Steyn acknowledges we have the best trained military but lack the necessary strategy to defeat Islamist radicals. (See 3 below.)

This editorial follows along the line of my friend whose comment I posted yesterday. Our first reaction is to protect PC'ism in order to temper what the facts may reveal when we finally uncover them. Then the next question is can we believe what we are being told or are facts going to be forever hidden from us?

The other article is also politically incorrect. We are supposed to love those who threaten our Republic and be considerate of their views. We are also supposed to lie to ourselves, sublimate our concerns and hide the truth because it might set us free to think for ourselves.(See 4 and 4a below.)

Pelosi Care, according to official estimates, will cost 1.2 billion but the cost of virtually every Federal Regulation has a tendency to escalate. I would rather trust The Heritage Foundation than any politician and we are probably staring at a 2 trillion plus cost or is it staring at us? (See 5 below.)

Edward Bast writes Krauthammer is all wrong. You decide. (See 6 below.)

Dick

1)Proposed Amendment 28 to the US Constitution!

"Congress shall make no law that applies to any citizen of the UnitedStates that does not apply equally to all US Senators and Representatives."

Congress shall make no law that applies to any US Senator or Representative that does not apply equally to all citizens of theUnited States. All existing laws and regulations that do not meet this criteria shall be declared null and void!"

2)Bloodless President Barack Obama makes Americans wistful for George W Bush.
Barack Obama's reaction to bad news is to play it so cool that Americans yearn for a bit more drama - and some even for his predecessor.
By Toby Harnden


During the election campaign, Barack Obama's cool detachment was a winning quality, the "No Drama Obama" a welcome contrast with the "Mr Angry" John McCain, never mind the hot-headed "I'm the decider" President George W Bush.

A year into his presidency, however, Mr Obama seems a curiously bloodless president. If he experiences passion, he seldom shows it. It is often anyone's guess as to whether an event or issue truly moves him.

In a sign that the Obama honeymoon truly is over, I began to hear this week the first stirrings of a wistfulness about Mr Bush. "I never thought I'd hear myself say it," one Democrat told me. "But Obama makes you feel that at least with Bush you knew where he was on something."

When Mr Bush's Republicans were defeated in the 2006 mid-term elections, it was the President himself who stepped up and declared that his party had received "a thumpin'". The Democratic defeats on Tuesday were not on anything like the same scale but Mr Obama acted as if nothing at all had happened.

Mr Obama had campaigned for Jon Corzine, New Jersey's Democratic governor, five times, twice just last Sunday. But when Mr Corzine lost by four points in a state Mr Obama won by 15 last year - a 19-point swing to Republicans - White House aides just shrugged.

In Virginia, which Mr Obama won by six points last year, prompting Democrats to declare an historic political realignment in the state, the Democratic candidate went down by 17 points in the biggest landslide since 1961 - a 23-point swing to the Grand Old Party.

It took Senator Mark Warner of Virginia to admit that his party "got walloped". For three days, Mr Obama maintained a studied silence about the results while his aides blamed them on local factors that had nothing to do with the President. And to think that it was Mr Bush who was always accused of being "in denial".

More serious perhaps was Mr Obama's strange disconnectedness over the Fort Hood massacre of 13 soldiers by an Army major and devout Muslim who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had praised suicide bombing and shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire.

Maybe Mr Obama had been reading the American press, much of which somehow contrived to present the atrocity as a result of combat stress due to soldiers going on repeated war deployments (though Major Nadal Hasan had not been on any) and therefore, no doubt, Mr Bush's fault.

When the television networks cut to the President, viewers listened to him spend more than two surreal minutes talking to a gathering of Native Americans about their "extraordinary" and "extremely productive" conference, pausing to give a cheery "shout out" to a man named Dr Joe Medicine Crow. Only then did he briefly and mechanically address what had happened in Texas.

On Friday, when most of the basic facts were available, Mr Obama tried again. It was scarcely any better. He began by offering "an update on the tragedy that took place" - as if it was an earthquake and not a terrorist attack from an enemy within -and ended with a promise for more "updates in the coming days and weeks".

Completely missing was the eloquence that Mr Obama employs when talking about himself. Absent too was any sense that the President empathised with the families and comrades of those murdered.

It was a reminder that for the past 16 years Americans have had two Presidents who would often extemporise and express emotion. President Bill Clinton could certainly "feel your pain" while Mr Bush sometimes struggled to hold back tears. Mr Obama is more like President George Bush Sr., who famously communicated his concern for people by blurting out: "Message - I care."

The White House argues that Mr Obama was not on the ballot last week and there is therefore no need to fret. The problem with this complacency is that voters were angry about the state of the economy, which Mr Obama can't keep blaming on his predecessor. With unemployment now above 10 per cent, Mr Obama needs to show Americans that he can relate to what they're going through, and take responsibility.

It could do him good to show he has a bit of fire in his belly. Perhaps he might make a decision or two based on gut instinct and deep conviction. In other words, maybe he should try being a bit more like Mr Bush.


3)Mark Steyn: Shooter exposes hole in U.S. terror strategy: Same ideological pathologies that drive al-Qaida overpowered Hasan's American identity.
Mark Steyn

Thirteen dead and 28 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in Afghanistan and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to combat overseas, it is not merely a "tragedy" (as too many people called it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have called, since 9/11, the "war on terror." Brave soldiers trained to hunt down and kill America's enemy abroad were killed in the safety and security of home by, in essence, the same enemy – a man who believes in and supports everything the enemy does.

And he's a U.S. Army major.

And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity – as if believing that "the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor" (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet paeans to the "noble" "heroism" of suicide bombers and, indeed, objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general vibrancy of the base.

When it emerged early Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of posts with the striking formulation: "Please judge Maj. Malik Nadal [sic]by his actions and not by his name."

Concerned tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that – and not just in the sense that the New York Times' first report on Maj. Hasan never mentioned the words "Muslim" or "Islam," or that ABC's Martha Raddatz's only observation on his name was that "as for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, 'I wish his name was Smith.'"

What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about the essence of this man.

Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers, recommend, judged people by their actions – flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad or Tikrit. And on the whole we're effective at responding with action of our own.

But we're scrupulously nonjudgmental about the ideology that drives a man to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like "radical Islam" or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old "radical extremism." But we never make any effort to delineate the line which separates "radical Islam" from nonradical Islam. Indeed, we go to great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An Army psychiatrist, Maj. Hasan is an American, born and raised, who graduated from Virginia Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. But he opposed America's actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan and made approving remarks about jihadists on U.S. soil. "You need to lock it up, Major," said his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.

But he didn't really need to "lock it up" at all. He could pretty much say anything he liked, and if any "red flags" were raised they were quickly mothballed. Lots of people are "anti-war." Some of them are objectively on the other side – that's to say, they encourage and support attacks on American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope.

Yet why be surprised? Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as "If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier's uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation" is an adviser to Britain's Crown Prosecution Service (the equivalent of U.S. attorneys). In Toronto this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned that, on flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her: "We are not to question Shariah."

That's the guy manning the airport security desk.

In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan's faith only obliquely: "He was single, according to the records, and he listed no religious preference." Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas says the major had "Allah" and "another word" pinned up in Arabic on his door. "Akbar" maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out copies of the Quran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.

But don't worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there's no terrorism angle.

That's true, in a very narrow sense: Maj. Hasan is not a card-carrying member of the Texas branch of al-Qaida reporting to a control officer in Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the same pathologies that drive al-Qaida beat within Maj. Hasan, too, and in the end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline – his entire American identity.

What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible symbolism: Members of the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force on the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took seriously. And that's the problem: America has the best troops and fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that drives the enemy – in Afghanistan and in Texas.


4)EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared "not a terrorist" before the facts were out - even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that.

Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman. However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist.

He reportedly was upset about the activities of the United States in the Middle East and purportedly had made postings about suicide attacks on jihadist forums. He told an associate that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor"; he was videotaped on the morning of the attack wearing traditional white clothing in the manner of someone about to martyr himself. The same day, he divested himself of belongings and handed out Korans, and he shouted the battle cry of the jihadists, "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. If these reports are true, this was not just terrorism; it was Islamic jihadist terrorism.

It is unclear whether Maj. Hasan acted alone or others were involved in this attack. It would not come as a surprise to learn more people were involved. If so, it will constitute a major counterterrorism failure.

Troubling questions are emerging. What diverted authorities from doing a more thorough job of investigating Maj. Hasan six months ago, when he was suspected of jihadist tendencies? Why was he allowed to remain on active duty in the Army, live amongst the troops and prepare for deployment to a combat zone? Those who claim that such an investigation would be some form of discriminatory profiling are simply wrong. It is not profiling to investigate someone based on probable cause. The fact that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim would not be reason enough to open an investigation. However, a Muslim in uniform openly discussing violence against the United States and posting his views on suicide attacks to jihadist forums should at least get a second look.

Those who want to explain this away as the result of stress, workplace violence or the "stretched force" are willfully blind. Condemned Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, scheduled for execution this week for his role in killing 10 people and wounding three in October 2002, petitioned for clemency on the basis that he suffers from severe mental illness and Gulf war syndrome. Surely someone who hunts down and murders strangers is not in his right mind, but the primary motive in both Muhammad's case and Maj. Hasan's was jihadism.

The refreshing candor of someone like Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the shooter in the June attack on the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., is rare. Reportedly, he said he was a practicing Muslim angry with the U.S. military for its crimes against Muslims and would have shot more than the two soldiers he killed if more had been available. This incident also was called "not terrorism."

The United States is engaged in a global struggle with violent adherents to an extremist Islamic creed. It does not besmirch the Muslim faith - or the vast majority of American Muslims - to admit that fact. The politically correct tendency to define attacks as something other than terrorism simply to avoid addressing the motives of the attacker is dangerous. Anyone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" and opens fire on a crowd of unarmed people is a terrorist. If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist, no one is.

4a)FT. HOOD ATTACK WAS TERRORISM
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN


In his nationally televised remarks following the horrendous killings at Ft. Hood, President Obama never mentioned the T word. The attack was an act "of violence." No mention of terrorism.

In fact, the Ft. Hood shooting is the first terror attack on American soil since
9-11. But Obama, reluctant to take the rap for inadequate protections against such attacks, is doing everything he can to make it look like an adult version of the Columbine school shootings. We are treated to stories about the killer's dread of being sent back to Afghanistan and his deformed personality.

But, the fact is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table, yelled "Alah Hu Akhbar" and began the shooting rampage that killed 13 people and wounded 30 more.

Ilana Freedman, CEO and Senior Analyst for the Gerard Group International, which provides intelligence analysis for business and homeland security, describes Hasan as a "lone wolf terrorist" who acts without apparent coordination with any other person or organization. But that does not make him any less of a terrorist.

The dividing line, of course, between a terrorist and a psychopathic killer is political motivation. His statements right before opening fire would indicate that Hasan was motivated by fanaticism and a commitment to Islamic fascism, even though President Obama bends over backwards to avoid saying so.

Obama's refusal to call the attack terrorism, and to heed the warning signs about the porous nature of our security system that allowed it to happen on a military base, recalls President Clinton's deliberate decision to downplay the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He did not visit the site of the attack and treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them.

There may be no groups behind Major Hasan's attack, but the fact that he was an officer in the Army, with full access to a military base and its arsenal of weapons, while holding the views he did, is the first indication of a laxity in security under President Obama. This attack did not take place in a shopping mall or a school, where security procedures are, understandably, relaxed. It happened on the highest security place of all - a military base! That the military failed to spot the possibility of an attack and had no measures in place to prevent it must be laid at the feet of the commander-in-chief of that military: President Barack Obama.

Many commentators have warned that the diminution of security and the weakening of our anti-terrorist protections would leave us vulnerable to be hit again. Now it has happened. And the president is doing everything he can to blur the distinction between murder and terrorism.

It was his failure to understand the difference between an act of war and a crime that undermined President Clinton's administration's anti-terror efforts and led directly to 9-11. It would appear that President Obama is going down the same road of denial and minimization of political harm. There may be casualties at Ft. Hood, but Obama is determined that his popularity will not be among them.


5)Yes, $2.6 Trillion! A Closer Look at the Full 10 Years of Spending in the House Health Bill

Heritage analysts noted earlier in the week, the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary score of the bill (H.R. 3962) but too many in the media have not been reporting its true cost. The true cost is not the net spending on only the coverage related provisions ($897 billion) but rather the total gross spending for the coverage provisions ($1.05 trillion) as well as any additional spending in the bill (approximately $217 billion). That would raise the plan’s price tag to about $1.5 trillion when including the roughly $210 billion cost of the “doc fix” is included. The “doc fix” refers to the undoing of the flawed Medicare payment update formula, which Congress created but has routinely stopped from being enforced. Under current law, that formula would result in a 20 percent reduction in doctors’ pay under the Medicare program.

The real story about the true cost is even more dramatic. The bill is front loaded with taxes, and back-loaded with spending in the first ten years. Since most of the spending in the House bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, the 10-year cost estimates based on the preliminary CBO score (for years 2010 through 2019) only account for six years of new spending under the plan. Once it is implemented (over a full 10-year window from years 2014 to 2023), the giant House health bill carries a price tag of $2.4 trillion, or as much as $2.6 trillion with the “doc fix.”


6)Under the Influence:The Measure of American Power
Andrew Bast

Editor's note: As noted below, this will be the final "Under the Influence" column at World Politics Review. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Bast for his contributions to WPR over the past 10 months. It's been a pleasure working with him, and we wish him the best of success in all his endeavors.

As this will be the final "Under the Influence" column here at World Politics Review, it seems only fitting to tackle what Charles Krauthammer, the iconic commentator, recently had to say about the question this column has been exploring for the last 10 months: Is American power waxing or waning? Writing in the Weekly Standard -- on whose cover figures a Nobel-wearing President Barack Obama, his right hand proudly resting on a bust of former President Jimmy Carter -- Krauthammer surveyed the vigorous debate over American power. It's a debate that has reached a fever pitch in the last few years, with the disastrous war in Iraq, the muddling through in Afghanistan, and the publication of popular studies like Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World."

Krauthammer wrote that, "For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice."

In this column, I have consistently laid out a yardstick alongside American power, and, in so doing, I've focused largely on two themes: the war in Afghanistan and the rise of China. And for good reason. The former, even more than Iraq, is a test of how the U.S. will shoulder what will be the chief security challenge to the international order for at least the next two decades: weak, fragile, and failed states. The rise of China, likewise, will test an entire field of political science scholarship, and specifically raises the question of whether this emergence of a new empire will lead, as it so often has in the past, to war.

Alongside these two dominant themes, I've also delved into several other facets of American foreign policy -- the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, Cuba, Haiti, underdevelopment, Darfur, and North Korea.

What has become clear through it all is that Krauthammer is simply dead wrong.

He writes, "We are the rarest of geopolitical phenomena: the accidental hegemon." But the reality is that there are few accidents in international politics, and even fewer with centuries-long trajectories. There are mistakes, gaffes, and idiotic strategies. But accidental hegemons are simply an impossibility.

No, the expansion of American power has been methodical, first by way of Manifest Destiny to the Pacific, then by way of the Monroe Doctrine throughout the Western Hemisphere, then on to the triumph in World War II and the capitalist proselytizing that won the Cold War. Far from accidental, our country's rise has been deliberate, and downright effective.

Krauthammer would have us believe that after a two-century rise, the U.S. has suddenly decided to shed its wild ambition, turn off the switch, and willingly (with apologies to Dylan Thomas) go gently into that good night. The suggestion, while it may provide political flimflam for a disaffected and alienated political class, is ludicrous.

Twenty-eight-point-three-seven-five. That is, by my calculation, the measure of American power at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Critics will say it's unscientific, and they'd be mostly right. But if the yardstick is the measure -- with 36 meaning unmatched global domination, and 1 signifying inescapable insignificance on the world stage -- at 28.375, American foreign policy seems to reach more than three-quarters of the targets it wants to hit.

Is that down from 1945? Most certainly. Down from February 2002? Perhaps a bit. But, contrary to the realists who believe that international politics is a zero-sum game, the world is more complicated than, "If I win, you lose." If U.S. power is waning, it remains damn strong. And that it is waning is far less a function of choice, a la Krauthammer, than the result of a global order outside the comprehensive grasp of any single state -- or empire, for that matter.

Three-quarters power still goes a long way. Sen. John Kerry's arm-twisting last month, for instance, forced Afghan President Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff election. But unlike total power, it only went so far. The runoff, which would have at least somewhat legitimized the democratic process in Afghanistan, later fell through. Also, lest it be forgotten, even if the occupation of Iraq has been a hellish nightmare, the initial U.S. invasion swiftly toppled Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. can still dominate any other traditional military on the planet. Though that might prove less and less valuable as the years pass, it still represents serious -- if three-quarters -- power.

However, tasking the military for civilian matters, as is happening today, could lead to disaster. A common refrain in military thinking today is, "To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail." Accordingly, several major initiatives -- from Stability Operations becoming a core mission of the nation's armed forces to the evolving counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan -- have turned soldiers into state-builders. If weak, fragile, and failed states really will be the foremost international challenge for the foreseeable future, then sending troops to do development is like taking a hammer to a cracked vase. Here Krauthammer's thesis rings true, if not as he intended, for this is indeed a significant choice that is pushing the country toward decline.

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," wrote Matthew Hoh in a September letter to his chain of command. Hoh served two tours as a marine in Iraq and had been in Afghanistan for 5 months with the Department of State when he penned this letter of resignation. "I do not believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque, and Sisyphean mission as the U.S. military has received in Afghanistan."

Years from now, his letter may well prove to be a momentary blip in the headlines. But today it stands as one of the most telling documents about the confusion of the mission and the paradox of sending the best-trained soldiers in the world to accomplish everything for which they have not been trained. It is no small fact that the Soviet Union's catastrophic fight in Afghanistan played a significant role in that empire's dissolution. And as for the host of other failed states, can the military really become a diplomatic arm of American foreign policy?

Then there's this: Years and years after the war in Afghanistan has come to an end, there will still be China. Of course, just two decades ago, elites in the U.S. desperately feared the ascendance of Japan. Unlike Japan, however, almost all signs suggest that China's rise will continue unabated. Interestingly, few, even in America's foreign policy apparatus, fear that rise. In many ways, this historical moment is defying convention. As Zakaria describes in his book, "[it is not] about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else."

This is where true influence may lay: in understanding that a real disjuncture in the history of global politics may be at hand. Rather than strengthening, say, a combative alliance with India to offset Chinese power, the U.S. could leave its most resonant imperial stamp on history by challenging China -- and Brazil, Russia, and India -- with cooperation. And the world order that would ensue could, indeed, leverage American influence on everything -- from nuclear proliferation to economic development and prosperity -- in unprecedented measure.

Andrew Bast has reported from four continents for several publications, including Newsweek and the New York Times. His weekly WPR column, Under the Influence, has appeared every Friday for the last 10 months

Now Israel's Turn To Be Thrown Under The Bus?

The White House demands all turn a deaf ear to FOX but then perhaps the nation is now tuning Obama out as well. (See 1 and 1a below.)

The Muslim community may not have a spokesperson who can speak for it at a national level but they must be more vocal. Do its members fear attack from within their own community? When the decent fail to speak out then the voices and actions of radicals are allowed to color attitudes. This would be tragic and unfair to all.(See 2 below.)

Comments of a friend and fellow memo reader whose has served his country at a very high level. (See 2a below.)

How to slip off the hook. Do so from within. No one will ever know. Throwing Israel under the bus? (See 3 and 3a below.)

Single payer here we come. (See 4 and 4a below.)

Dick


1)Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

'We better not see you on again,' the strategist says he was told by a White House official. Obama aides have taken an aggressive stance against the network and may be seeking to isolate it.
By Peter Nicholas

-At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.

A boycott by Democratic strategists could also help drive the White House narrative that Fox is a fundamentally different creature than the other TV news networks. For their part, White House officials appear on Fox News -- but sporadically and with "eyes wide open," as one aide put it.

David Plouffe, the president's campaign manager and author of a new campaign book, "The Audacity to Win," was scheduled to appear on Fox's "On the Record" with Greta Van Susteren Thursday night as he promotes his book. His appearance, preempted by the breaking news of the shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas, has been rescheduled for Monday.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Thursday night that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for President Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.

Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that," he said.

Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself."

The White House has taken an aggressive stance toward Fox. When President Obama appeared on five separate talk shows one Sunday in September, he avoided Fox.

"It would be foolish for us to just treat it like it's CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS," said a White House aide. "That doesn't make any sense. That would be like saying we're going to do [interviews] with the newsmagazines and we're going to do Time, Newsweek and the [conservative] National Review."

The aide spoke on condition of anonymity in order to talk more openly about the White House's thinking.

Last month, Dunn told CNN that Fox was, in effect, an "arm" of the Republican Party. Dunn said in an appearance on the rival cable network: "Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

As the dust-up played out, Fox's senior vice president of news, Michael Clemente, countered: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, healthcare and two wars."

Fox's commentators have been sharply critical of the Obama administration. After the president won the Nobel Peace Prize, Sean Hannity, who has a prime-time show on Fox, said he got the award for "trashing America."

The two sides seemed interested in easing tensions. On Oct. 28, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met privately with Clemente.

But White House aides haven't changed their underlying view of Fox.

Fox's audience is by far the largest of the cable networks, with an average of more than 2.1 million viewers in prime-time this year. CNN is second with 932,000 prime-time viewers.

Fox's viewership is not what worries the White House, though. More troubling to White House aides is that other news organizations may uncritically follow stories that Fox has showcased.

The White House aide said: "Where some of the falsehoods become dangerous is when the rest of the media accepts them as fact and reports on them, either out of a desire to tap into Fox's news audience -- which you can understand, given where circulation and viewership rates are -- or as some sort of knee-jerk fear of being considered liberally biased, which is what conservatives have been saying of the mainstream media for years."

The White House's pugnacious approach to the network leaves some Democrats troubled.

Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, said in an interview: "This approach is out of sync with my conception of what the Obama administration stands for and what they're trying to do. I think they'll think better of it and this will be a passing phase."


1a)The Rose Garden Path: The White House has gotten bad at listening, and now it's paying the price.
By PEGGY NOONAN

First thought on Tuesday's elections: There's a lot of firing going on in America, and now that includes politicians. Seems only fair and will likely continue. I don't think voters in New Jersey and Virginia were saying, "Oh the Democrats are awful, and we hate them," nor were they saying, "Republicans are wonderful, and we love them." The voters were being practical, and thinking policy: "Will he raise my taxes?" In Jersey, they fired the incumbent governor because they couldn't imagine the state getting off its current trajectory (high unemployment, high taxes, high spending) with him there. And they're certain they have to get off their current trajectory or they're sunk.

Both states hired new governors. The good news for the GOP is that they hired Republicans. The bad news is that if the Republicans don't make progress, they'll fire them too.

Second, it's too simple to say this was a vote against Obama. Yes, he went to Jersey three times and draped himself like a shawl around the Democratic incumbent. But the crowds showed and nobody booed and everyone had a good time. What happened actually is more interesting. They just didn't listen to him. Mr. Obama told Jersey to vote for Jon Corzine, and they didn't. They don't hate him, they're just not hearing him. That's new. They're warning him: Hey you with the health-care obsession, shape up or you'll get shipped out!

There's a new detachment between the president and the electorate he won a year ago by 9.5 million votes. The reason: In 2009, the Democrats who run the White House and Congress chose to go down one path at the exact moment voters went down a different one. The voters, frustrated and then alarmed, waited to fire the first available Democrat, and this week they did. Mr. Obama carried Democratic Jersey by more than 15 points exactly one year ago. The Democratic governor lost by nearly five points this week. That is a 20-point swing. Mr. Obama won Virginia a year ago by six points. The Democratic candidate for governor lost by more than 18 points. That is a 24-point plummet. (The congressional race in upstate New York was too messy, too local, and too full of jumbly facts to yield a theme that coheres.)

The path the president and the Democrats of Congress chose has been called the big-bang strategy. In January 2009 they had the big mo and could claim a mandate. The strategy was to give their first year to 2008 domestic policy pledges: health-care reform, climate change, empowering unions, etc.

But reality came in and stole the mandate, stopped the mo. The reality is that over the past 10 months the great recession settled in, broadened its presence, and became part of the national landscape. It became the big bad thing for normal people. It became a literal daily threat ("Is Daddy going to lose his job?") that underscored a chronic anxiety. That anxiety is that spending at all levels of government, and the tax demands it will bring and has brought, will make the overall economy worse. If Daddy manages to keep his job in this round of cutbacks, he won't be safe in the next round.

A president has only so much time. Mr. Obama gives a lot of his to health care. But the majority of voters in New Jersey and Virginia told pollsters they were primarily worried about joblessness and the economy. They're on another path, and they don't like the path he's chosen. A majority in a Gallup poll out Wednesday said they now think the president governs from the left, not the middle. The majority did not expect that a year ago.

The president chose promises made before the recession fully took hold, rather than more pressing and pertinent public concerns. In the language of marketing that has become the language of politics he thereby, in his first year, damaged his brand.

***
Professional politicians say great things after an election this stark, great in the sense that they reveal whether they have a tropism toward truth or a tropism toward . . . let us call it other things, including mindless spin. "We won last night!" Nancy Pelosi crowed. "I think we had a major victory," said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) on "Morning Joe." Mika Brzezinski was so delighted by his lurch from reality that she asked him to repeat it, and he did.

Interestingly, the president has said nothing.

Under the heading tropism toward truth we have what Sen. Mark Warner, himself a former Virginia governor, told Politico: "We got walloped."

That was admirably candid. Some party activists said the problem was with Democrats such as Virginia's gubernatorial nominee, Creigh Deeds, not more fully embracing Mr. Obama in their campaigns. White House adviser David Axelrod echoed this to Politico, saying that in previous elections, beleaguered candidates learned that "the history of running away from a president is not very good."

More Peggy NoonanRead Peggy Noonan's previous columns
click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.
My goodness, throw the drowning man an anvil. This goes beyond loyalty. All White House staffs tend to hypnotize themselves into thinking their greatest asset is the president. George W. Bush's people thought this way too—the guy is magic, associate yourself with him and you'll win big. That's what they told candidates in 2006, when Mr. Bush dragged them down. Most modern White House staffs, no matter who the president, wind up at a point where they're like the men around Stalin. Stalin would give a speech, and his commissars would all wildly applaud. The applause would go on a long time, but it had to end at some point, so Vladimir sitting up front would, in an attempt to be helpful, would stop applauding and sit down. Everyone else would follow. The next week Stalin would give a speech and everything would be the same except Vladimir was no longer in the front row. He was in the gulag. This is how White House staffs come to think: Never be the first one to stop applauding.

Democrats in the House, especially the moderates and so-called blue dogs, really should stop applauding at this point, and signal to the president that he's been handed a gift by the voters: a rough suggestion as to a midcourse correction.

Politico asked if the White House would learn anything through what happened Tuesday, and if a correction was possible. I doubt it. It is odd to see such hard-line tough-guy political players—and that's how they see themselves and in part are—governed, really, by abstractions, by things that look big-time but are actually small-time: our legacy, our greater historical meaning, the Aristotelian purity of getting at least a partial public option established so that it will grow and history will look back and say, "Ah, after 40 years of waiting they delivered what America never had and needed."

Mr. Obama and the House leadership may be too deep into health care to make a shift now and get in line with the American people's concerns. But they should start paying attention to what the people are saying. What happened Tuesday isn't a death knell, but it is a fire alarm: Something's wrong, fix it, change course. Show humility. Bow to the public. "Public opinion is everything," Lincoln is said to have said. It is. It can be changed and it can be shaped, but it always has to be listened to. This White House has gotten bad at listening. It paid the price for that on Tuesday.

2)Another attack leaves US Muslims fearing backlash
By ERIC GORSKI

As word spread that a gunman had opened fire at Fort Hood leaving a trail of carnage, a chilling realization swept across the U.S. Muslim community: He has an Islamic name.

From a professor who just testified in Congress, to a White House adviser appearing before a Jewish group and a former Marine driving home from work, Muslims across the country were shocked, angry and afraid that the attack would erode efforts to erase anti-Islamic stereotypes.

Many Islamic leaders said the Fort Hood tragedy that left 13 dead and 30 wounded including the alleged gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, could likely post the sternest test for U.S. Muslims since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"A lot of us work very hard for this country, to make America a better place," said Muqtedar Khan, a progressive Muslim scholar who has just given Congressional testimony on U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan before Thursday's attack. "And this one nut like Maj. Hasan comes along and in one crazy episode of a few seconds he undermines these years and years of hard work we are doing to make American Muslims part of the mainstream in the community."

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is a Muslim who attended his former mosque daily and had an "Allah is Love" bumper sticker on his car. Soldiers reported Friday that the shooter shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — Arabic for "God is great!" — during the rampage.

Other troubling details also emerged, including reports that authorities suspect Hasan posted online messages about suicide bombers and violence, was struggling with a pending deployment to Afghanistan and was being harassed in the Army for being a Muslim.

While a motive remains unclear, the confirmation of Hasan's faith alone prompted major Muslim groups and mosques to issue statements condemning the killings as contrary to Islam and praising the service of the many Muslim Americans in the U.S. military.

Of immediate concern was security at mosques Friday, Islam's main day of communal prayer.

In Washington, Chicago and elsewhere, mosques asked police for extra patrols. In Garden Grove, Calif., officers stood watch outside a mosque as a precaution.

Muslim leaders warned people to be vigilant and avoid exposing themselves unnecessarily — including walking alone, said Hussam Ayloush, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Southern California.

"This is one of those moments where we have to sit and pray that most Americans will come out stronger, more united, and more tolerant," said Ayloush, adding that Muslim organizations have received dozens of death threats and hate e-mail.

At the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md., which Hasan attended before moving to Fort Hood, Imam Mohamed Abdullahi urged worshippers Friday to tell their non-Muslim neighbors that Islam was not responsible for the deaths. He also advised them to keep their tempers in check.

"Whenever we hear the name turns out to be Arabic or Muslim we feel a double shock" about such incidents. "And then we worry about backlash," said Imam Mostafa Al-Qazwini of the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County in Costa Mesa, Calif.

U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat who is one of two Muslims serving in Congress, cautioned against focusing on the alleged shooter's religion and instead said the discussion should be about mental health issues.

"This is no way a reflection of Islam any more than Timothy McVeigh's actions are a reflection of Christianity," said Carson, who supervised an anti-terrorism unit in Indiana's Department of Homeland Security and comes from a family of Marines.

Eboo Patel, the executive director of Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, had just spoken at a Union of Reform Judaism conference in Toronto on Thursday night when a rabbi told him: "The guy had a Muslim name."

"I had just spoken from the tradition of Islam ... on the importance of interfaith cooperation and building Muslim-Jewish bridges," said Patel, who sits on a White House faith-based advisory board. "I wish that was viewed as reflective of Islam instead of a deranged lunatic who was acting only in the tradition of deranged lunacy, not in the tradition of any faith."

But other Muslims were weary of what has become a routine: a Muslim does something unspeakable, and Islamic organizations issue statements condemning it.

"Truth be told, we're getting a little exhausted because we've done this to death," said Robert Salaam of Maryland, a former Marine who converted to Islam shortly after the 9-11 attacks and now blogs and hosts a radio show on Muslim affairs. "We're apologizing for people we don't know."

Still, driving home from work listening to the news Thursday, Salaam thought: "God, I hope it's not a Muslim."

2a)Following the events at Ft Hood the liberal media rushed to provide rationalizations for the despicable behavior of Maj.Hassan. One aspect of this tragedy has been conveniently overlooked however: the FBI statement that there was no evidence of "a terror nexus" in the shootings. This astounding statement was made prior to the arrival of the FBI on the scene, prior to the release of the identity of the shooter ! This seems to be a standard practice of the FBI in such events. For example, similar statements were made after the attack on the El Al desk at LAX, only to be contradicted, but much later with very little fanfare. One might explain or excuse such statements as attempts to calm the populace( which is not the FBIs mission!) but it seems to me that the real reason is to lay the necessary foundation for excusing FBI inaction and inattention, as was done in the case of the 9/11 attacks. Now that Hassan's laptop is in FBI possession, we will never know what evidence it contains of FBI incompetence. Supported by the liberal press Hassan's behavior will be written off as the reaction of a man who was the victim of vicious discrimination, instead of seeing it as it really is: a successful terror attack within the US. The complicity of the liberal press and the FBI will only lead to repetitions of such events.


PS to my last msg; the rejection by US Muslims of Hasan's acts must be viewed against the Muslim doctrines of taqiyya and kitman, which require Muslims to lie when their faith puts them in danger.

3)The New Iran Man at the State Department's Iran Desk
By Ed Lasky

John Limbert will be the senior Iran official at the State Department, replacing Dennis Ross, who has moved to the National Security Council (and who has not been heard from publicly since). Should America be concerned? Yes. Limbert is not a neutral arbiter; he serves on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).


What is the National Iranian American Council?


The Council is widely considered the de facto lobby for the Iranian regime in America. It opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels "patience" regarding Iran's stance towards its nuclear program. The NIAC has been at the forefront of lobbying against continued congressional funding of the Voice of America Persia service, Radio Farad, and grants for Iranian civil society. To top it off, the NIAC has reportedly received funding from anti-Israel advocate George Soros, who at the very least was an honored guest and speaker at one of its symposiums. (He called for a more equitable Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and advocated for America to renounce regime-change as a goal).

The NIAC staunchly opposes any military attacks on Iran. In other words, it all but serves as Iran's embassy in Washington -- though the NIAC vociferously disputes this characterization. However, there is very little sunlight between the views of the regime and the NIAC.


The NIAC is also headed by the controversial Trita Parsi. Who is Trita Parsi?


He was born in Iran, but moved to Sweden at the age of four. He pursued a career in international relations, eventually leading him to found the National Iranian American Council (more on that tie later).


Parsi serves as an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, a "think-tank" that serves as one of the public-relations agencies for the Muslim world in Washington. The Middle East Institute is headed by Wyche Fowler, who has a string of what I called "Fowler Howlers" when I wrote about the Middle East Institute years ago. The Fowler Howlers were statements to the media that were so glowing regarding the Muslim world as to be synonymous with mirages.


Parsi also is the author of the book The Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States, which was an expanded version of his dissertation thesis. The book was warmly endorsed and recommended by none other than John Mearsheimer, Zbigniew Brzezinski (who served as Parsi's dissertation adviser), and the former Foreign Minister for the State of Israel who has become an appeasement-focused dove, Shlomo Ben-Ami -- recently seen speaking at the J Street conference. Treacherous Alliance delves into anti-Semitic canards regarding Jewish control of policy in Washington.


The Treacherous Alliance also traffics in conspiracy-mongering, blaming neo-cons (you know who they are) for trying to push America into war with Iran. Parsi distorts history and willfully mistranslates the Iranian call for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He omits Iranian responsibility for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed so many Americans. He characterizes Iranian rhetoric against Israel as just words. He also blames the West for ignoring and dismissing numerous efforts by the Iranians to accommodate the West and blames the problems between America and Iran on Israeli machinations to turn nations, including our own, against Iran. The book is replete with errors and misinformation. Both Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic take a skeptical view towards Parsi and the NIAC: Goldfarb calls him "the Iranian regime's man in Washington," while Goldberg accuses him of "doing a lot of leg-work for the Iranian regime."


The NIAC also has an ambitious plan that it unwittingly disclosed just a few years ago: enhance its power in Washington in order to help steer American foreign policy.


One curious fact is that board members of the NIAC contribute to J Street, the anti-Israel lobby that tries to pass itself off as "pro-peace" and supportive of Israel (just as the NIAC tries to palm itself off as being pro-American and pro-peace). Not so coincidentally, Trita Parsi himself was on a panel at the recent J Street conference.


There are a range of efforts that the NIAC has undertaken to enhance its power in Washington: it has placed interns in the offices of Congressmen; persuaded House members to sign a letter to President Bush in 2006 calling for unconditional negotiations with Iran's regime; and has, among other steps, hired the Iranian-American Press Secretary for Representative Marcy Kaptur (not known to be a stalwart supporter of the America-Israel relationship) to help improve their lobbying in Congress. The key goal of the NIAC, as made clear in their master plan, is to place its supporters into key positions of power in Washington.


Their efforts have reached fruition: the National Iranian American Council now has one of their own as the Iran man (literally and metaphorically) at the State Department. The caviar is flowing in Tehran.


3a)PM heads to U.S., under threat of Palestinian statehood declaration
By Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya

Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.

The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.


In late August Fayyad presented the international community with a detailed plan for building up Palestinian Authority institutions and set a timetable of up to two years for its implementation. Senior Israeli officials said Fayyad's plan initially met with positive reaction in Jerusalem for its emphasis on institution-building and making security services more efficient.

But some Israeli officials told Haaretz that alongside the clauses reported in the media - which are similar to elements of Netanyahu's call for "economic peace" between Israel and the Palestinians - Fayyad's plan also contains a classified, unreleased portion stipulating a unilateral declaration of independence.

The plan specifies that at the end of a designated period for bolstering national institutions the PA, in conjunction with the Arab League, would file a "claim of sovereignty" to the UN Security Council and General Assembly over the borders of June 4, 1967 (before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, during which Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza).

Fayyad is also seeking a new Security Council resolution to replace Resolutions 242 and 338 in the hope of winning the international community's support for the borders of a Palestinian state and applying stronger pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

Several Israeli officials told Haaretz that Fayyad had spoken to them of positive responses he had received over the plan from prominent EU member states, including the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Sweden. Fayyad added that he presented the proposal to the U.S. administration and did not receive any signal of opposition in response.

Netanyahu's "kitchen cabinet" has held a number of meetings on the matter in recent months. "It's a very dangerous move," said a senior Israeli foreign-policy official. "More and more cabinet ministers understand that diplomatic inaction on Israel's part is likely to bring international support for the Fayyad program."

Israeli sources said Netanyahu discussed the proposal in meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special Mideast envoy George Mitchell and requested that the U.S. tell Fayyad that it would not support his proposal and would veto it in the Security Council. Netanyahu has yet to receive a clear response from Washington on its stance on Fayyad's plan.

Netanyahu is to arrive in Washington today for a brief visit. He is scheduled to address the United Jewish Communities General Assembly, preceded by Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

On Tuesday Netanyahu is to fly to Paris, where he is scheduled to meet with President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday. The prime minister's Paris visit comes just two days before that of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who will also meet with Sarkozy. Netanyahu has not signaled interest in renewing negotiations with Damascus, but stagnation in talks with the Palestinians may force him to do so.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, a mediator between Israel and Syria during Ehud Olmert's term as prime minister, said Friday in Paris that Turkey seeks to resume its role as an intermediary between the two countries, and that his government can be an "honest broker" in such talks.

Netanyahu has expressed reluctance over Turkish mediation due to ongoing diplomatic tension between Ankara and Jerusalem.



4)Making Health Care Worse
By Thomas Sowell

What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?

Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.

Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.

If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation-- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs-- of anything-- is more alarming than reassuring.

What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?

Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.

However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."

But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.

Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.

Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.

This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.

Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.

In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.

But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums.

All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.


4a)House passes sweeping healthcare overhaul
By John Whitesides and Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives approved a sweeping healthcare reform bill on Saturday, backing the biggest health policy changes in four decades and handing President Barack Obama a crucial victory.

On a narrow 220-215 vote, including the support of one Republican, the House endorsed a bill that would expand coverage to nearly all Americans and bar insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Most Republicans criticized its $1 trillion price tag, new taxes on the wealthy and what they said was excessive government interference in the private health sector.

Democrats cheered and hugged when the 218th vote was recorded, and again when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pounded the gavel and announced the results.

The battle over Obama's top domestic priority now moves to the Senate, where work on its own version has stalled for weeks as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid searches for an approach that can win the 60 votes he needs.

Any differences between the Senate and House bills ultimately will have to be reconciled, and a final bill passed again by both before going to Obama for his signature.

"Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation," Obama said in a statement after the vote.

"I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year," he said.

The overhaul would spark the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system, which accounts for one sixth of the U.S. economy, since the creation of the Medicare government health program for the elderly in 1965.

ABORTION DEAL

The vote followed days of heavy lobbying of undecided Democrats by Obama, his top aides and House leaders. The narrow victory was clinched early on Saturday by a deal designed to mollify about 40 Democratic opponents of abortion rights.

Democrats had a cushion of 40 of their 258 House members they could lose and still pass the bill. In the end, 39 Democrats sided with Republicans against it.

The lone Republican to vote in favor of it was first-term Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana. "It was a bipartisan vote," Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said to laughter among fellow Democrats afterward.

The landmark vote was a huge step for Obama, who has staked much of his political capital on the healthcare battle. A loss in the House would have ended the fight, impaired the rest of his legislative agenda and left Democrats vulnerable to big losses in next year's congressional elections.

Obama traveled to Capitol Hill on Saturday morning to meet with House Democrats and emphasize the vital need for the healthcare reform bill.

Republicans and Democrats battled in sometimes testy debate through the day and into the night on Saturday over the bill, which would require individuals to have insurance and all but the smallest employers to offer health coverage to workers.

It would set up exchanges where people could choose to purchase private plans or a government-run insurance option bitterly opposed by the insurance industry, and it would offer subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance.

Congressional budget analysts say the bill would extend coverage to 36 million uninsured people living in the United States, covering about 96 percent of the population, and would reduce the budget deficit by about $100 billion over 10 years.

"We can't afford this bill," said Republican Representative Roy Blunt. "It's a 2,000-page road map to a government takeover of healthcare."

REPUBLICAN PLAN REJECTED

Democrats rejected on a 258-176 vote the much smaller Republican healthcare plan, which focused on cost controls and curbing medical malpractice lawsuits but did not include many of the insurance reforms of the Democratic plan.

The House also approved on a 240-194 vote an amendment that would impose tighter restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortions.

House Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote on the amendment to mollify about 40 moderate House Democrats who threatened to oppose the overhaul without changes to ensure federal subsidies in the bill for insurance purchases were not used on abortion.

The move enraged Democratic abortions rights supporters, but they largely voted in favor of the bill in hopes they can remove the language later in the legislative process.