What Obama Doesn't Know Can Hurt Us!

America has a major problem because President Obama admits he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's not just his uninformed statement that police "acted stupidly" by arresting his friend, a noted black scholar. The President also admitted last week that he doesn't know the details of the legislation that he's promoting for a big-government overhaul of our health care system.

Salesmen are supposed to know their product. Misrepresenting what you sell is fraud.

The fact that Obama hasn't read all 1,018 pages of the massive bill is not shameful. But he told a blogger news conference that he's even unaware of what's at the very start of the bill--the provisions that would squeeze 88-million Americans out of their private insurance coverage and into a government-run plan.

Details about Obama and about what IS in the bill are here in Ernest's latest column at Human Events.

Can the Left Dictate to Democrats in Congress?

Even as most Americans grow more concerned about federal overspending—including our first-ever trillion-dollar deficit—left-wing pressure groups are pushing harder than ever for more government and more spending. They’re spending millions on TV and radio barrages because they don’t believe President Obama and the liberals in Congress have gone far enough. Like the Energizer Bunny, these groups keep going and going and going.

Read about "The Overstimulated Left," which won't slow down its demands despite public opposition to their overspending and big government plans. Plus the "Blue Dog Democrats" are the targets of a massive ad campaign from their own liberal party leaders, as the Democratic National Committee tries to push relucant Democrats into voting for Obama's massive health care overhaul.

"Gender Identity" laws lead to mischief

This week I've hosted Mark Shannon's afternoon drive radio talk show on KTOK in Oklahoma City, while he takes time off.

With "hate crimes" legislation moving through Congress, I asked Oklahoma State Rep. Al McCaffrey to be a guest on the program, since he has sponsored bills to add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected groups under Oklahoma law.

I quickly understood that he had a different understanding of some of the goals and the terms that homosexual rights groups want to place into our laws. The term "gender identity" in particular is not the innocent term it may appear to be.

The website of the Transgender Law Center is a major and extensive resource for what is being advocated, and is quite revealing about the agenda. For example, here is part of what it states about school restrooms:

All students have a right to safe and appropriate restroom facilities. This includes the right to use a restroom that corresponds to the student’s gender identity, regardless of the student’s sex assigned at birth.[4] Requiring the student to ‘prove’ their gender (by requiring a doctor’s letter, identity documents, etc.) is not acceptable. The student’s self-identification is the sole measure of the student’s gender.

The same page has many more incredible details about the agenda. And what IS "gender identity?" To be succinct, it means cross-dressing. This does not involve persons who have undergone sex-change surgery. "Gender identity" means whatever a person chooses to claim at the moment. Here is the definition that advocates created and was adopted by the public school system for Los Angeles, California:

"Gender identity" refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.

"Gender expression" refers to the way a person expresses her or his gender, through gestures, movement, dress and grooming.

The school systems' reference guide is online here. It includes these definitions and much more. Approval of cross-dressing is already the policy in Los Angeles public schools. Parents are not to be told if their child cross-dresses at school, and teachers must let each student decide whether they want to be called a "him" or a "her."

The Transgender Law Center also proclaims that, thanks to its efforts and that of others, "267 Colleges and Universities Have Non-Discrimination Policies that Include Gendeer Identity/Expression." Their list of those schools is online here.

The term "gender identity" promises to be an endless source of mischief, letting persons remove privacy barriers at will. New York City last fall gave cross-dressers the right to use the public restroom of their choice in its transit system, after one of many lawsuits filed since the city added "gender identity" to its human rights law in 2002. One department store has been forced to let men who dress as women use its restrooms and its fitting rooms. Controversies over the term are afoot in many states and communities where activists are pushing adoption of that term in hate crimes laws, employment laws, school codes and more, with the same zeal as the Greeks pushed their Trojan Horse.

With their "gender identity" foot-in-the-door approach, homosexual rights activists are creating enormous problems. The terminology is dizzying as various subgroups seek recognition. Acronyms that began with "Gay and Lesbian" have expanded to GLBT (adding bisexual and transgendered) and LGBTQ (adding either "questioning" or "queer") to LGBTQIA (adding intersex and allies). This is sure to be an incomplete list.

We who are concerned with traditional values should remember that each step taken will lead to another. A major example was when California's State Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right (which voters later overturned). The court's decision concluded that once California had created "civil unions" for persons of the same sex, the state had triggered the constitutional requirement for equal protection of the laws, and therefore must convert civil unions into actual marriages.

Unfortunately for those who argue for moderate or compromise solutions, each supposed halfway measure leads us further away from traditional values. Recognition of "gender identity" opens an enormous Pandora's box of problems.

Sneak Peek at New "Government-Built" Car!!

Since the U.S. government has taken over General Motors, everyone has wondered what type of car it wants to build. Here's a sneak peek from a hidden camera that caught the first glimpse of the new vehicle.

Government's Comedy of Errors

Why should we let government create a new health insurance company?

Does anyone really believe the federal government is filled with efficiency experts?

Yet superior government efficiency is at the core of claims from President Barack Obama and others pushing creation of a government-run health plan.

Obama states, “If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down.”

And who would keep government honest? Surely not the designated watchdogs, like the Inspectors-General personally fired by the President for catching a FOO (Friend of Obama) with his hand in the till.

Those who believe government could run a health plan cheaper and better than the private sector should consider the bureaucratic messes that Ernest Istook outlines in his column this week at Human Events.

Giant Numbers Are Bad for Your Health

The numbers get in the way when Americans try to understand all the talk about health care legislation. Who can fathom what it really means for government to spend an extra $1-trillion? Or $1.6-trillion? Or the even-higher numbers that are being tossed around!

Should taxpayers be willing to pay a cost that is so huge it defies our ability to understand it?

Just TRY to count to a trillion. If you could continue non-stop, counting one number a second, to reach a trillion would take you 32,000 years.

Ernest Istook takes a look at the enormity of what a trillion really means, in his column at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32346

Defense Shrinks While Rest of Government Grows

Even as bailouts and other spending seem to know no bounds, President Obama is limiting spending in one area—our national defense.

Without waiting for an upcoming review of what our military needs, almost half of Obama’s budget cuts are to defense, and more are planned for future years. All of these are then plowed back into spending increases elsewhere.

What is on the chopping block? The ability to engage in conventional warfare and to deter or defeat major threats, such as North Korean or Iranian nuclear missiles, or a growing navy such as China’s, or a nation with sophisticated aircraft such as Russia’s. Yet for less than the cost of a major bailout, Obama and the Congress could assure proper funding of America’s military and defense.

Ernest Istook gives details of the cuts and how they put America at risk, in his column at: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32169

And check out The Heritage Foundation's documentary at www.33minutes.com.