Town hall meetings are today's civil war

Left: A video from CNN affiliate KNXV shows a man carrying an assault rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix, Arizona. (KNXV)







Two days ago I told a friend of mine that the heated town hall meetings on healthcare reform could be this era's version of a civil war, and that had this "battle" taken place in the 60s or 100 years ago, people would be shooting each other.

Little did I know that weapons had already made an appearance in a couple of demonstrations last week.

One Rambo-wanna-be man, for example, showed up at a protest in Phoenix--where Obama was addressing veterans--carrying an assault rifle and a handgun.

He mindfully took it with him to what he knew would be a dangerously heated encounter with "the enemy." Like a dozen others carrying weapons that day, he paraded his rifle allegedly to exercise his right to bear arms. Fine, but that was not his only motive, if you ask me.

He relied on his weapon to intimidate those on the other side of the argument, to shut them up lest they get shot. He chose to draw power from a fire arm instead of the strength of his position on the debate. How convenient, how lazy, and how lame.

He also took the rifle to the rally because he thought he might need it, because he thought he might use it.

Police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said the group carrying weapons was "interested in exercising the right to bear arms."

"I'm exercising my rights as an American in Arizona," Rambo, who refused to give his name, told KNXV.

Um...he shows up with fire arms at a protest against the president of the U.S., claiming it's his right, walking around like a tough guy, but he hides his name? Coward. No wonder he needs guns.

I'm not questioning his right to carry arms; I believe in that right. I'm questioning his judgment.

If exercising this right was his only purpose, why not carry the guns while walking his dogs, why take them to protests bursting with people on the edge of violence?

"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," Rambo said. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."

I don't buy it.

The man added that he was unhappy with some health care reform proposals. Exactly. Here we go...

"I'm absolutely, totally against health care, health care in this way, in this manner," he said. "Stealing it from people, I don't think that's appropriate."

And that's why he's carrying the rifle.

Plus, what about the angry person likely to lose control while standing inches away from an armed person during one of these crowded meetings or protests? What if someone there feels like exercising his finger with a trigger?

Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons, so despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made, CNN reported.

Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn't require a license for open carry.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said, "Of course not."

Of course not?

The individuals would never have gotten close to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, Donovan said, explaining that a venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and that weapons are not allowed on a federal site. The men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking, Donovan said.

"We pay attention to this obviously...to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law," he told CNN.

He's downplaying the issue because that's what he's supposed to do. We don't need to trigger yet another national debate on Second Amendment rights--not now at least.

But here's the thing: given that many opposers of healthcare reform are gun-proud Republicans, chances are more goons who evidently can't rely on their intellectual abilities to debate this issue will show up armed at town hall meetings and protests.

Someone is going to get shot.

Sources: CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

How do healthcare proposals compare?

(photo source unknown)

President Obama is traveling to Montana today for yet another so-called town hall meeting to explain what his healthcare reform plan is all about. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to post the following information listing what each of the plans under debate propose.

If you ask me, there are too many unknown variables in all of the plans because there's simply no way to address each and every possibly scenario in healthcare and insurance coverage. And given people's resistance to change, fear of the unknown, and the wild notions Republicans are spreading about healthcare reform--that it will turn the U.S. into a socialist country, among them--I can't see how any of these plans could ever get a fair chance.

Furthermore, when I think about the notoriously lazy legislators who vote on bills without reading them (being thousands of pages long probably doesn't help), and considering the complexity of the subject, I can't help but wonder how any of them could possibly fully understand any of the plans enough to cast an educated vote.

FACTBOX on healthcare reform as published by Reuters

When Congress returns Sep 8, lawmakers will continue work on an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system. There are three different plans in the works, all containing changes that would be phased in over a number of years.

In the House of Representatives, three committees have each approved changes to one House bill. The changes will be melded by House leaders into final legislation before a floor vote expected in September.

In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has approved its version and the Senate Finance Committee is working on a separate healthcare overhaul bill.

The following is a comparison of major points in the various proposals.

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS

All bills include the following:

• Bar discrimination based on gender or pre-existing medical condition.
• Coverage is guaranteed and benefits could not be rescinded after coverage is issued.
• No annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments.

Senate Health Committee and Finance Committee

• Premiums could vary only on family size, geographic region, tobacco use, age and benefits provided.
• Coverage is guaranteed and benefits could not be rescinded after coverage is issued.
• Insurers must provide financial incentives for quality and preventive care.

House bill

• Would eliminate co-pays for preventive care.

COVERAGE

Senate Health Committee bill

• Individuals are required to obtain coverage or pay a penalty of up to $750 per year. To help people pay for it, credits would be available up to an income of $88,000 a year for a family of four.
• Employers are required to pay 60 percent of coverage for workers or pay $750 per year penalty. First 25 employees are exempt.
• Health and Human Services Department would decide what is in a basic insurance plan required to be offered to all.

Senate Finance Committee bill

• An individual mandate is likely. No employer mandate is expected to be included but employers whose workers obtain subsidized coverage through an insurance exchange would have to cover some of the cost of those subsidies.

House bill

• Individuals would be required to obtain coverage or pay a penalty based on income.
• Employers would be required to contribute 65 percent of workers' family insurance premiums or pay an 8 percent penalty. No penalty for small businesses but competing versions define small business as either under $250,000 or $500,000 annual payroll.

INSURANCE OPTIONS

Senate Health Committee bill

• Insurance "gateway," or exchange, would serve as a clearing house for private insurers and a new public insurance option run by the government to sell policies to those who do not have coverage elsewhere.
• New government-run insurance system would negotiate with providers for payments not more than the average of private insurers in the gateway system.
• Those who have insurance would be permitted to keep their current plans and health insurers could sell policies outside the gateway system.
• Health and Human Services Department would set out essential health benefits and minimum coverage for individuals.
• Temporary aid for employers to cover retirees between ages 55 and 64 until the gateway system is in place.
• Dependents would be covered until age 26.

Finance Committee

• Expected to provide for non-profit co-operatives rather than a government-run insurance plan.
• Establishes state insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals without employer-sponsored insurance.
• The proposed new government-run plan or co-op insurance plans would be offered through these exchanges.

House bills

• Would set up a public insurance option similar to the Senate Health Committee bill.
• State insurance exchanges would offer individuals and small businesses insurance from private insurers or the government-run plan.
• Insurance co-operatives would be allowed.

INSURANCE SUBSIDIES

Senate Health Committee and House bills

• Provide various forms of individual subsidies on a sliding scale up to 4 times the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four).
• The bills provide for some form of premium credit or tax subsidy for small businesses.

Senate Finance proposal

• Expected to provide refundable tax credit for individuals up to 3 times the poverty level.
• To provide a small business tax credit.

MEDICAID

Millions more people would become eligible for state Medicaid health plans for the poor.

Senate Health bill

• Expansion to those with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level.

Senate Finance

• Expansion to be determined. Federal government would bear added costs for a number of years, expected eventually to shift those costs to states.

House bills

• Expansion of coverage to 133 percent of poverty. Requires states to enroll those newly eligible.

MEDICARE

All bills include provisions to improve quality of healthcare in the Medicare program for the elderly. Payments to be designed to encourage quality, not quantity of services.

House bill

• Requires government to negotiate prices with drug companies.
• Eliminates the drug coverage gap over 15 years.
• Will cover the cost of voluntary discussions with healthcare providers on end-of-life care.

(Compiled by Jackie Frank and Donna Smith, editing by Eric Beech)

To read the House bill, go here.

To read the Senate bill, go here. (The document does not specify which of the two bills--Health or Finance committee--this is.)

Sources: Reuters, CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Welcome to the summer of hate

Left: People protesting proposed health care reform outside of the high school where President Obama was conducting a town meeting on Aug. 11, 2009, in Portsmouth, N.H. (Robert Spencer/Getty Images)

Following is a column published on Aug 13 by NPR and written by Laura Lorson, host of All Things Considered for Kansas Public Radio in Lawrence.

It's kinda funny, but it makes a point--one I tend to agree with as you can see from my healthcare reform Town Hall meetings updates.

It seems like there's some kind of impulse for people to just get together and DO something. Forty years ago, long-haired, incense-burning baby boomers were subjecting us to "The Summer of Love," and they got all worked up and piled into VW micro-buses and drove out to upstate New York, rolling around in the mud and taking drugs, and generally alarming their parents with the threat of — I don't know — communes.

Now, it's 40 years later, and gray-haired, incensed boomers are subjecting us to what I guess you might want to call "The Summer of Hate," to judge from the pictures of people's faces contorted with rage, calling each other names that they used to reserve for "The Man." Now, instead of the peace and harmony, make-love-not-war thing, they're getting all worked up and piling into tricked-out minivans and driving out to their congressional representatives' offices, rolling around in their Medicare-provided scooters, yelling about the cost of drugs and generally alarming their parents with the threat of — I don't know — health care.

Now, I know that I'm shooting fish in a barrel, here. I mean, I'm a Gen-Xer, and what we do is snark on everything, especially baby boomers. We grew up hearing over and over again how their generation had ideals! And goals! And relatively easy access to a wide variety of hallucinogens! My generation? We had drug-abuse resistance education, McGruff the Crime Dog, and Depeche Mode. We ridicule, therefore we are. But seriously — that's hilarious! From Woodstock to apoplectic rage, in 40 short years. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

You know what I think is really at the heart of these protests? Why the turnout is large, and the momentum building? It's that people like to take a road trip. What they're road-tripping FOR doesn't actually make much difference. I keep seeing footage of people camping out in front of these Senators' offices, and mentally, I'm getting a picture of Woodstock, just cleaner, and with more clothes.

I keep expecting some fella to go up to a podium and announce, "Hey, everyone, the brown Maalox that is circulating around is not too good." Then they would all listen to "Sugar Magnolia," accuse each other of being fascists, and go home. Anyway, it looks alarming, and maybe not as much fun as three days of peace and music, but it's still kind of reassuring to know that you might take the people out of the '60s, but you can't take the '60s out of the people.

They still get together and declare, in no uncertain terms, what they want. I don't claim to know who's doing what, who's financing what, all I know is that people can be united in anger and opposition, or united in peace and togetherness, and either way, it's really something to see.

Source: NPR

Healthcare reform Town Hall talks go on

Now happening at a Town Hall near you--
(skip the first minute)



Source: YouTube

US Town Hall meetings on healthcare reform

In a nutshell...



Source: YouTube

Healthcare industry spends big on lobbyists

It's no surprise that healthcare companies are pouring millions of dollars in lobbying to influence how legislators will vote on President Obama's healthcare reform.

Pharmaceutical companies, doctors, insurers and hospitals are the leading spenders, Reuters reported.

Here is a look at some of the biggest spenders so far according to Senate reports:

- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers, $6.1 million.

- Pfizer, $5.6 million

- American Medical Association, $3.8 million.

- Eli Lilly, $ 3.6 million

- Amgen, $3.4 million.

- Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 2.8 million.

- GlaxoSmithKline, $2.3 million.

- Novartis, $1.8 million.

- MetLife Group, $1.7 million.

- Allstate, $1.5 million.

- Merck & Co. $1.5 million.

Source: Reuters
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Time/CNN cartoons of the week

Benson / Arizona Republic / Creators Syndicate

Mike Smith / Las Vegas Sun / King Feature Syndicate

Jones / The Free Lance-Star / Creators Syndicate

Mike Smith / Las Vegas Sun / King Feature Syndicate [My personal favorite]

Gary Varvel / The Indianapolis Star / Creators Syndicate

Source: Time/CNN

Healthcare reform tough without legislator reform

Health and healthcare happen to be up high in my priority list, yet, as you can see, I haven't been posting much about the reform, which no doubt is a critical issue in this country.

Why?

Because it's a clusterfuck.

It's gotten so complicated that it's not only overwhelming to try to understand but also nearly impossible to explain--and that's a bad sign, if you ask me.

Why is it such a clusterfuck?

Because of special interest groups (insurers and healthcare providers) lobbying the crap out of spineless legislators who are more interested in what they can get from these groups than in doing their jobs.

Surely there's a simpler way to approach universal healthcare--there has to be. But that would lead to reduced profits for most of this heath-caring (not!) people.

One of the most contended aspects of the reform is the $1 trillion price tag. Well, I think that's probably twice of what it would cost if these fuckers weren't out to get obscenely rich vs. seeking to make a decent living, even be wealthy.

Furthermore, how many millions (ahem, billions) of dollars to we send to other countries disguised as "aid" to advance geopolitical agendas, among other things...? Sometimes the so-called aid enables some of these foreign governments to provide basic services, such as healthcare, to their people. Charity starts at home.

In addition, it is acceptable to spend $12 billion a month of taxpayers' money to fund a pseudo-war in Iraq (launched by the Bush administration based on a series of lies) that has done absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life in this country, but it's not acceptable to allocate that kind of effort and resources on the healthcare of Americans.

I think the best system would be one without insurance companies.

You think I'm oversimplifying things? Fine, but I think it is that simple.

Clusterfucks are notoriously present when a bunch of irrationally motivated people are set on getting their way above all else, unwilling to cooperate among themselves to reach a compromise that serves everyone's needs to a certain degree vs. catering either exclusively or disproportionately to one or more groups at the expense of others.

Case in point: Last week, South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint told fellow legislators that "if we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Does it sound like this distinguished (not!) member of Congress is interested in anything other than his and his party's political agenda? Nope.

While the Obama administration labors to find a way to make decent healthcare accessible to all--rich, poor and in-between--Americans, this asshole is stuck on how to "stop Obama."

"Think about that," President Obama said Monday during a visit to Children's National Medical Center in Washington in response to DeMint's remark. "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses, and breaking America's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time. Not now."

Here's the thing: DeMint can dedicate his precious energy and resources to this irrational cause because either he's healthy enough to do so or, when he's not, he's got a killer health plan--paid by you and me--to cover his ass.

I'd like to see what he would do if illness Waterloo-ed his life and he didn't have the so-called "Cadillac plan" he's entitled to as a congressman to get catch him when he falls.

Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Stew of News - spooning and scooping 'em for ya

Economic indicators up more than expected in June, from AP

Sony bids $50 million for Michael Jackson's rehearsal film for 'This Is It' comeback tour, from AP

Dogfighting sentence ends for Ex-NFL star Vick, from AP

Obama challenges GOP critics on healthcare, from AP

Clinton says 9/11 ringleaders are in Pakinstan, from CBS News

$23.7 trillion to fix financial system? from ABC News

Saying 'sorry' pays off for U. of Michigan doctors, from AP

Mom charged with endangerment for leaving kids--3 to 12 years old--in mall alone, from ABC News

Stew of News -- Government

Court rules school strip search unconstitutional

The Supreme Court ruled today that school officials' strip search of a then-13-year-old Arizona teen suspected of possessing a painkiller violated the girl's constitutional rights, despite the school district's zero-tolerance policy for drugs.

All drugs? Who gets high on Advil?

The court said, however, that school officials are protected from personal liability in the case, ABC News reported.

They were the ones who searched her, then who's liable? The walls?

The ruling is a partial victory for Savana Redding, who had been summoned from her middle school classroom and was asked to strip down to her underwear as school officials searched for prescription strength ibuprofen.

Left: Savana Redding (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

"They asked me to take off my clothes, and I did while they stood there," Savana said. "When I was finally in my underwear, I thought, 'OK, they are going to let me put my clothes back on.'"

"They just looked at me and said, 'well, now you have to pull out your bra and shake it and your underwear as well," she said, her eyes filling with tears. "I really wanted to cry."

I'm sorry, my friends, but I was outraged when this story first came out months ago. I think it's absurd that kids can't carry Tylenol or Claritin in their book bags these days but have to give it to a nurse who then gives is to them when they need it. WTF?

I understand there are pill abusers out there, and that school officials are trying to curtail drug use in their jurisdictions because of potential legal liability and because parents have a tendency to blame the schools for what their children choose to do and for the parents' own shortcomings. But I'm tired of seeing the innocent paying for the guilty.

The decision could redefine student privacy rights and outline important guidelines for school officials as they seek out dangerous contraband such as drugs, weapons or alcohol.

An 8-1 majority of the Court found that the search was unconstitutional. Justice David Souter, writing for the majority said, "Savana's subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating....Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion."

"The strip search of Savana Redding was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment," the court ruled.

The Court emphasized that the intrusiveness of the search was not justified because Savana was not suspected of carrying dangerous drugs, ABC reported. "The Fourth Amendment places limits on the official, even with the high degree of deference that courts must pay to the educator's professional judgment."

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent, arguing the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Thomas wrote, "By deciding that it is better equipped to decide what behavior should be permitted in schools, the Court has undercut student safety and undermined the authority of school administrators and local officials."

Even as he was accused of sexually harassing women, which is muuuch worse than carrying ibuprofen in school, he wasn't humiliated with a strip search. Maybe someone should give him a demonstration...

The Court ruled 7-2 that the school officials were protected from having to pay Savana monetary damages, saying that though the search was unconstitutional, school officials "are nevertheless protected from liability through qualified immunity."(How is that immunity qualified?)

Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in partial dissent, would have found the officials personally liable for monetary damages.

Justice Ginsburg, the sole female on the court, caused a stir in a recent interview when she questioned whether her male colleagues could fully embrace a young girl's reaction to such a search and wrote that the school officials treatment of Redding was "abusive."

I'm with ya, sista.

Senators find way to lower health care reform price tag

A group of key Senate negotiators found a way to reduce the price tag on the health care reform bill, bringing it in line with a $1 trillion target and moving the Senate Finance Committee closer to a deal. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announced Thursday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed the $1 trillion cost over 10 years.

Right: Max Baucus (Reuters)

The cost has become the top concern of Finance Committee senators after they received an estimate last week from the Congressional Budget Office claiming that an early version of the bill would top $1.6 trillion, or $600 billion more than expected, Politico reported.

The senators said they found $400 billion in savings earlier this week, largely by reducing the amount of subsidies for low-income individuals to buy insurance, Politico reported.

It is unclear where the $200 billion in additional cuts were drawn, although Baucus said the discussed ways of empowering a federal board known as to wring savings out of the system. Despite the progress, Baucus said he is not yet ready to schedule a markup of the bill.

Trillions, billions...who can keep up?

Not so rosy news on the economy...

The U.S. economy shrank at an annual pace of 5.5% in the first quarter, the government said Thursday, a slower pace of decline than the 5.7% previously reported but still the second largest quarterly drop in 27 years.

The Commerce Department reported in April that gross domestic product--the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity--fell at an annual rate of 6.1% in the first quarter. In its first revision, the agency said that GDP declined at an annual pace of 5.7%, according to news reports.

The government revises the GDP twice each quarter, and Thursday's report marked the final revision.

The first quarter of 2009 marked the third quarter in a row that the economy contracted. It was the second worst drop in the measure since the early 1980s, behind only the fourth quarter of 2008, when GDP plunged at an annual pace of 6.3%, CNNMoney reported.

The news comes as the number of workers filing new claims for unemployment benefit rose unexpectedly this week by 15,000 to 627,000, reflecting continuing strain on the US economy. The overall U.S. unemployment rate has also now risen from 8.9% to 9.4%, the highest level since August 1983. (Photo by EPA)

The new estimate reflected a slightly better reading on consumer spending and lower imports, partly offset by declines in inventories and construction.

Reflecting the weak pace of global economic activity, exports plunged at a 30.6% rate in the first quarter instead of the 28.7% estimated a month ago. That was the steepest drop in foreign sales in 40 years. Imports dropped at a 36.4% rate, the steepest since the summer of 1947.

Sooner or later, it will get better...if you ask me.

Source: ABC News, The Associated Press, CNN, BNO
Copyright © 2009

Obama speaks on Iran, energy, health care, jobs

President Barack Obama at a press conference June 23. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

Obama began his press conference today with Iran, followed by energy legislation bill the House is working on and finishing with health care reform.

Some of his Iran-related comments so far:

• "This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they, and only they will choose."
• "The Iranian people can speak for themselves."
• "We are going to monitor and see how this plays out before we many any judgments about how to proceed..."
• "As soon as violence broke out--in fact, in anticipation of potential violence--we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people."
• "My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what's happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House, that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people. What we've also been consistent about is saying that there some universal principles...freedom of assembly freedom of speech..."
• "The international community is bearing witness to what's taking place."
• "Iranian government must understand...how they handle they dissent in their country...will help shape the tone not only for Iran's future but also [their relationship] to other countries."
• To a question about John McCain calling for Obama to take a stronger stand against what's happening on Iran, Obama said: "I think John McCain has genuine passion about international issues, and I think that we all share a belief that we want justice to prevail, but only I am the president of the United States. I've got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries. You must have seen the reports...[they] translate what I've said [to make it seem as though] I'm saying people should go out and revolt.... They've [Republicans in Congress] got their constitutional duties, and I'm sure they will carry them out in the way that they think is appropriate. I'm president of the United States, and I'll carry out my duties as I think are appropriate."
  
• Q: "Why don't you spell out the consequences?" A: "Because we don't know how this is going to play out. I know you're all on a 24 hour cycle--I'm not."
• Q: "Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it, isn't that a betrayal?" A: "We didn't have international observers on the ground..we can't say definitely what the outcome was...what we can say is that [many] Iranians are question the legitimacy of the elections, so ultimately the most important thing Iran should consider is legitimacy in front of its own people. What we can do is say unequivocally that there are...international rules against violence that spans cultures...I think it's not too late for the Iranian government...that there is a peaceful path.... We hope they take it."
• "Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
• Q: "What is your reaction to the video [of Neda]?" A: "It's heartbreaking. It's..uh..heartbreaking. And I think that anyone who sees it can see that there's something fundamentally unjust about that."
  

• To a question about the economy and jobs, he replied: "I think it's clear that unemployment will go over 10%...we're not on full recovery yet. What's important to me is how resilient the American people have been, and that they're still more optimistic than the facts [would lead them to be ]...This is a tough, tough period." We've all been struck by the courage of [the Iranian] people...We have to believe that ultimately justice will prevail."

Below are the prepared remarks for his speech:

Iran

First, I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

Energy Bill

The second issue I want to address is our ongoing effort to build a clean energy economy.

This week, the House of Representatives is moving ahead on historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America. It is legislation that will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.

This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.

These incentives will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. And that will lead to the development of new technologies that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America – jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.

At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe. It also provides assistance to businesses and communities as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies.

This legislation is extraordinarily important for our country, and has taken a great effort on the part of many over the course of months. I want to thank the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman; his colleagues on that committee, Congressmen John Dingell, Ed Markey, and Rick Boucher. I also want to thank Charlie Rangel, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Collin Peterson, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, for their many and ongoing contributions to this process. I also want to express my appreciation to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

We all know why this is so important. The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy. That is what this legislation seeks to achieve – it is a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation. And that is why I urge members of the House to come together and pass it.

Health Care Reform

The last issue I’d like to address is health care.

Right now, Congress is debating various health care reform proposals. This is obviously a complicated issue, but I am very optimistic about the progress they’re making.

Like energy, this is legislation that will be paid for. It will not add to our deficits over the next decade. We will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health care system – some of which we’ve already announced.

We will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care. We simply cannot have a system where we throw good money after bad habits. We must control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses, and our government into greater and greater debt.

There is no doubt that we must preserve what is best about our health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctors and their health care plans to keep them. But unless we fix what is broken in our current system, everyone’s health care will be in jeopardy. Unless we act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans. Unless we act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today.

When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable. Reform is not a luxury, it is a necessity. And so I hope that Congress will continue to make significant progress on this issue in the weeks ahead.

Sources: CNN, BNO News, My Twisted Mind
Copyright © 2009