Obama surrenders again

Barack Obama is at it again.  He actually makes Jimmy Carter look like a courageous leader. 

What is going on?  What is Obama’s latest surrender?

In the South China Sea, China has unilaterally expanded what it refers to as an air defense zone over some islands that are claimed by China, Taiwan, Japan and possibly even other nations.

Japan responded by refusing to notify China if its airlines were going to overfly the islands in China’s new air defense zone.

What has Obama done?

From Reuters:

The United States advised its commercial airlines to notify Chinese authorities of flight plans when travelling through an air defense zone that Beijing established a week ago over the East China Sea, ratcheting up regional tensions.

 The United States said it expected U.S. carriers to operate in line with so-called notices to airmen issued by foreign countries, adding, however, that the decision did "not indicate U.S. government acceptance of China's requirements.

 The advice is in contrast with America's close ally Japan, where the two major airlines have agreed with the Japanese government to fly through the zone without notifying China.

 Beijing wants foreign aircraft passing through the zone - including passenger planes - to identify themselves to Chinese authorities.

 A U.S. administration official said China's action appeared to be a unilateral attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea, which could "increase the risk of miscalculation, confrontation and accidents".

 "We urge the Chinese to exercise caution and restraint, and we are consulting with Japan and other affected parties throughout the region," the official said.

 The zone includes skies over islands at the heart of a tense territorial dispute between Japan and China and represents a historic challenge by the emerging new world power to the United States, which has dominated the region for decades.

What does a nation with a real leader do?  It tells the Chinese to go to hell. 

What does Obama do?  He surrenders early and often. 

But then again, Obama wants to see American power and prestige in the Pacific wane.  He wants to see America as not a superpower but just another minor nation state.  Obama will stand up to the Republicans but on the other hand the Republicans won’t fight back.

When it comes to standing up to a real dictatorship, like China’s, Obama surrenders faster than Jimmy Carter ever dreamed of doing.

2013 Nobel Peace Pies

Krauthammer: Everything administration says about ObamaCare a 'fudge'

Everything the administration says about ObamaCare is a "fudge," Charles Krauthammer told viewers Friday on “Special Report with Bret Baier.
His comments came as the administration worked to meet a self-imposed November 30 deadline to fix the HealthCare.gov website.
The syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor said, “Everything they tell you about ObamaCare, everyone knows is a fudge, or a hedge or a guess, or a prayer, or an outright deception.
"This is another one of those, you know, that's multiple choice, a, b, c, d, or e, you choose which one you want, but it's not the truth."
 Krauthammer said President Obama's promise earllier this month that the web site "is going to be working the way it is supposed to," was "simply another example of an administration that simply not only can't shoot straight, but can't talk straig

Dems worrying about re-election prospects distancing themselves from Obama over health law rollout

WASHINGTON –  A month after emerging from a government shutdown at the top of their game, many Democrats in Congress newly worried about the party's re-election prospects are for the first time distancing themselves from President Barack Obama after the disastrous rollout of his health care overhaul.
At issue, said several Obama allies, is a loss of trust in the president after only 106,000 people — instead of an anticipated half million — were able to buy insurance coverage the first month of the new "Obamacare" web sites. In addition, some 4.2 million Americans received notices from insurers that policies Obama had promised they could keep were being canceled.
"Folks are now, I think in talking to members, more cautious with regard to dealing with the president," said Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the senior Democrat on the House Oversight Committee and one of the first leaders in his state to endorse Obama's presidential candidacy six year ago.
Cummings, the White House's biggest defender in a Republican-controlled committee whose agenda is waging war against the administration over Benghazi, the IRS scandal, a gun-tracking operation and now health care, said he still thinks Obama is operating with integrity. But he noted that not all his Democratic colleagues agree.
"They want to make sure that everything possible is being done to, number one, be transparent, (two) fix this website situation and, three, to restore trust," Cummings said.
Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., like Cummings, a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus who personally likes Obama, struggled to describe the state of play between congressional Democrats and the president.
"I am trying to think if you can call it a relationship at this point," he said.
Clay said the administration is now obligated to "fix it, fix all of it" after Obama apologized this month for both the insurance website problems and his earlier promises that people could keep their old polices. Otherwise, he said, "a wide brush will be used to paint us all as incompetent and ineffective."
Obama is now allowing insurance companies to reissue their canceled policies for another year. But "Obamacare's" problems have left Democrats vulnerable to an orchestrated assault by Republicans who six weeks ago were on the losing end of the government shutdown.
The political body language tells the story of the strain. Thirty-nine House Democrats in Obama's party defied the president's veto threat and voted for a GOP-sponsored bill to permit the sale of individual health coverage that falls short of requirements in the law.
"I think people want to have a little more transparency going forward with whoever is implementing the website and other elements," said Jeff Link, senior adviser to Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley, who is running for Senate and voted for both the original health care law and the GOP-sponsored House bill this month. "If demanding that kind of transparency means lack of trust," he added delicately, "then I think people probably would like to have had more transparency."
Across the Capitol, several swing-state Senate Democrats have signed onto legislation to further weaken the health care law. Sponsored by Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who's facing a tough re-election challenge, the bill would require insurance companies to permanently continue selling policies that the law deems substandard. Landrieu herself skipped an event with Obama earlier this month when he appeared at the Port of New Orleans. She said she had a long-standing engagement elsewhere in the state, which Obama lost last year by 17 points.
Repairing the relationship between Obama and his allies may be as complex as fixing the website and health care law. Much rests on rebuilding trust with the public, a solid majority of which now opposes "Obamacare," according to multiple polls. Both parties will be watching on Saturday to see whether the vast majority of those who try to sign up for policies on the website will succeed, as Obama has promised. Democrats have urged the administration to quit setting "red lines" like the Nov. 30 deadline, that carry the risk of being broken.
Nearly a year from the midterm election, Republicans in both chambers are launching a drive to link virtually every congressional Democrat to Obamacare. In the House, the effort, based around dozens of votes to repeal the law, is about denying Democrats the 17-seat gain they would need to win back the majority. In the Senate, it's about gaining the six seats Republicans need to take control of that chamber.
"So you're running on Obamacare," read a faux tip sheet from House Republicans to House Democrats that went out over the holiday week. "The best thing to do," it advises Democratic lawmakers in 28 districts, "is step in front of the cameras and explain to voters why government should run their health care."
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, showed notable discipline last week when they complained loudly about the Democrats' new limits on filibusters — then pivoted in as little as one sentence back to "Obamacare."
The filibuster limits, said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, can be chalked up to "broken promises, double standards and raw power — the same playbook that got us Obamacare."
Democratic leaders scoff at the notion that missed deadlines and other problems could threaten the party's prospects 11 months down the road. A similar budget-and-debt fight that sparked the shutdown and smacked Republicans last month looms early next year, they point out. There is time, they insist, for the law to begin working as intended and to help elevate the Democrats' political prospects.
"Yesterday's battles and today's battles and tomorrow's battles create different environments," said House Democratic campaign chief Steve Israel, D-N.Y. Independent voters, the keys to elections in the most competitive districts in the country, are pragmatic, he added. "They want the Affordable Care Act not to be repealed, but to be fixed. They don't want to go back, they want to go forward."

The Deal

Working but poor? Fear the dreaded coverage gap.

Q I’m a single, healthy, female non-smoker, age 26, living in Tennessee. According to the HealthCare.gov cost calculator, with a income of only $8,000 a year I won’t qualify for a subsidy to buy health insurance. How does that make any financial sense?  

A It doesn't! That is why the health reform law as originally written expanded Medicaid, the venerable government-run health insurance program for low-income families and disabled people, to cover everyone with an income below 133% of the federal poverty level, which includes you.
But in its 2012 ruling on the constitutionality of the new health care law, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states the option of not expanding Medicaid, and Tennessee was one of the several dozen states that decided against it.

However, the rest of the law was left untouched. Including, unfortunately, the income ranges that determine eligibility for financial help to lower the cost of premiums for private insurance. Because the original idea was to put all low-income households on Medicaid, the law confers subsidies only on households with incomes of between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. In states that aren't expanding Medicaid, this has created a "coverage gap" for people like you, who make too little to qualify for a subsidy but don’t fall into a category that’s already eligible for Medicaid. To fix this would require an act of Congress, which is unlikely given the current state of Washington politics.

So right now we are stuck with a two-tier system for the working poor. In states that are expanding Medicaid, they will enjoy free or nearly free health care. Bailey Comment: "Ain't nothing free".  In states that aren't, they will remain uninsured and unable to get subsidies to buy private insurance. For a painful contrast you only need to look next door to Kentucky, which is expanding Medicaid. They've already enrolled more than 45,000 new people into the program.
The sad and frustrating thing is that states can expand Medicaid whenever they want to. What's more, that the federal government is picking up 100% of the cost for the first two years, and 90% after that, so it's a bargain for states. According to this recent report in the New York Times, your governor is trying to get expansion done but the state legislature is balking.
You might want to get in touch with your elected representatives to ask them why they think it's a good idea for low-income working people like yourself to remain uninsured.
Got a question for our health insurance expert? Ask it here; be sure to include the state you live in. And if you can't get enough health insurance news here, follow me on Twitter @NancyMetcalf.

Health reform countdown: We are doing an article a day on the new health care law until Jan. 1, 2014, when it takes full effect. (Read the previous posts in the series.) To get health insurance advice tailored to your situation, use our Health Law Helper, below.

NBC cancels Alec Baldwin's show 'Up Late' following actor's homophobic outbursts

  NBC's Alec Baldwin experiment is over 46 days after it began.
“We are jointly confirming that UP LATE will not continue on MSNBC,” the network and actor's reps said in a joint statement to FOX411.
MSNBC had already suspended Alec Baldwin’s low-rated news program last week following an alleged gay slur directed toward a photographer outside his New York City apartment earlier this month.
Despite the actor's apologies, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) had also had enough.
“Mr. Baldwin can’t fight for equality on paper, while degrading gay people in practice,” a GLAAD rep told FOX411.
Capital One, which employs Baldwin in its “What’s in your wallet?” TV campaign, has so far done nothing to distance themselves from the hot-headed thespian. The credit card giant did not respond to multiple requests for comment from FOX411 last week regarding his status with the company.
Baldwin’s last episode of "Up Late" hit a demo low, pulling in only 101,000 viewers 25-54 against 395,000 total viewers. The demo number represented a 41 percent drop from the 172,000 adults aged 25-54 who watched the one-hour program's October 11 debut.
 Bailey Comment:  To hell With The Majority now it's only about the Minority! Even if the minority is now the majority.

Congress

Iran

Arizona high school student suspended after fight over Confederate flag

An Arizona teenager is protesting his school's decision to punish him after getting into a fight with another student over a Confederate flag displayed on his truck.
Jacob Green, a junior at Millennium High School in Goodyear, tells MyFoxPhoenix he was suspended for five days after defending himself against a classmate who confronted him about the flag, which has flown his truck for six months.
"I've done nothing wrong," Green told the station. "I've flown a flag on my truck. Somebody fought me because of it. I didn't fight him."
In an email to parents following the incident, school officials explained that both students were suspended and that Jason was prohibited from bringing the flag on campus.
"Open display -- bringing it in -- it has been proven to be patently offensive to certain groups and the courts recognize that," Agua Fria Unified School District Superintendent Dennis Runyan told MyFoxPhoenix.com.
Jacob said he has researched the flag's history and didn't find it offensive. His parents believe the student who attacked their son committed a hate crime and are considering filing a police report.
"The flag means basically more independence, less government. It didn't mean racism, it didn't mean slavery, it didn't mean any of that," Jason said. "It basically meant what they were fighting for was their right to be independent and not have the government control them."  Bailey Comment: "Lets be honest with this subject, cruising around America one will see lots of different flags of other nations being displayed". One example is the flag of Mexico, yet there is no outcry over it.The Confederate Flag is part of America's history, so what do you want to do hid it or change history to fit your own ideas?  Below is a site you should visit before making that judgement.

 http://www.usa-flag-site.org/

WHAT DOES A FLAG MEAN?

1. I am the property of, or responsible for, the entity that this flag represents. (Example: flag at the entrance to a national park.)

2. I am subject to the laws of the entity that this flag represents. (Example: flag on a US merchant ship at sea or in a foreign port.)

3. I am an official representative of the entity that this flag represents (Examples: flag on a US Navy warship or on a US government office.)

4. I owe allegiance to the entity that this flag represents. (Example: a citizen flying the US flag on his house.)

5. I have an emotional or cultural attachment to the entity that this flag represents. (Example: a person of Polish ancestry flying the Polish flag on his house.)

6. I wish to show my respect for the entity that this flag represents. (Example: flying the British flag to commemorate the Queen's birthday.)

Missouri high school under fire for teacher-led prayer sessions from the American Humanist Association

A Missouri school district has vowed to "vigorously defend" itself after a secular organization announced it had filed a lawsuit to prevent alleged teacher-sponsored school prayer sessions in high school classrooms.  
The legal arm of the American Humanist Association filed a complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, claiming that prayer sessions held at Fayette High School violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which says the government may not establish an official religion. 
The lawsuit alleges a math teacher led the weekly Christian devotional prayer sessions for several years in her classrooms after buses arrived in the morning and before classes began. The suit said she would urge students to pray for sick or injured students and joined the students in saying "amen." The school's former principal made an announcement over the public address system to remind students about the meetings.
The teacher violated a school district policy that states school employees "are to be present solely in a nonparticipatory capacity at any student-initiated religious activity held at school and will strictly observe a policy of official neutrality regarding religious activity," the lawsuit says.
The suit also said the teacher told students during her math class that God would punish them if they are not good and prominently displayed the book "God's Game Plan" in her classroom.
The teacher and principal left the district at the end of the 2012-13 year, but the association believes the prayer sessions are continuing this year, said Monica Miller, an attorney for the group. She said it's unclear whether a teacher is participating in them.
"What we are challenging is that the district has established a policy of allowing teachers to pray with students," Miller said, adding that the suit seeks to keep that from happening in the future.
Miller said that a student plaintiff is still attending the school. The student that originally reached out to the group about the prayer sessions recently left the school over concerns the school was promoting a religious environment, KOMU.com reported.
In a statement obtained by the station, the school district declined to comment on the allegations specified in the complaint but said it would "vigorously defend against any claim that the district has taken actions which violate any person's First Amendment rights."
Carl Esbeck, University of Missouri law professor, told ColumbiaTribune.com that an important distinction is whether the prayer sessions took place while the teacher was "on the clock."
"Outside their clock hours, they're private citizens like anybody else," Esbeck said.

What the American Humanist Association is all about.

The conjunction of humanist and Islamic worldviews will threaten to destroy America from within throughout the 21^st century.  Indeed, there is a war of worldviews raging in America, with secular humanism and Islam as co-belligerents on one side and Judeo-Christian America on the other. 
The worldview war
The worldview war is spiritual in origin.  The Bible states in Ephesians 6:12 that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."  Worldviews incorporate theology and therefore reflect spiritual beliefs.  Life in America as we know it is at stake in this war.
A worldview is a comprehensive framework of ideas and beliefs from which an individual interprets his surroundings and circumstances.  It is this view of reality that consequently directs the decisions and actions of the individual, and also of nations.  According to Dr. David Noebel, worldview expert, worldviews are composed of ten different disciplines: theology, politics, economics, philosophy, biology, history, ethics, law, sociology, and psychology.
There are primarily six worldviews contending for the 6.9 billion people on Earth, with Islam, secular humanism, and Christianity chief among them.
The Islamic threat to America has historically been primarily a war of words, as characterized by S.A.A. Maududi in 1939, when he said, "Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth - not just a portion, but the whole planet."  Maududi influenced Sayyid Qutb, the leading theologian of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and '60s and author of Social Justice in Islam.  Qutb had a significant influence on bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
The rise of secular humanism
Secular humanism increasingly supports the Islamists' position in the battle against the Judeo-Christian worldview.  Secular humanists currently dominate the government, education, the media, and the legal institutions in the United States.
Secular humanism may be the fastest-growing worldview in America.  It has also been declared a religion by the U.S. Supreme Court; the American Humanist Association has been given an IRS religious tax exemptionⁱ_.
Why are humanists and Islamists united in their opposition to the Judeo-Christian worldview?

• Humanists and Islamists share the primary goal of removing Christianity from public life so that their worldview can gain power.

• They both seek government solutions to accomplish utopia on earth.  The humanists desire a one-world government that perfects man on earth (via the United Nations, EU, etc.), while Islam seeks a one-world caliphate and a sharia legal system that perfects man on earth.

• Both use each other in attacking the Constitution.  The Muslim uses humanist doctrine (separation of church and state) in attacking the Constitution through judges, etc. to open the door for Sharia, food regulation, sanctioned prayer, and state suppression of Christian expression.  The humanist uses the Islamists to counter Christian "oppression" and attack the Constitution.

• Both use each other in a "termite strategy."  Termites destroy a house slowly and then suddenly.  By the time you see them, it may be too late.

The history of Islamists joining efforts with humanists is longstanding.  The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with Hitler's Germany to annihilate the Jews.  The Ayatollah Khomeini aligned with Russia against Christian America shortly after taking power in Iran^iv_.
Islamic and Humanist totalitarianism cause religious persecution.
Estimates of Christians persecuted worldwide have reached 200 million.  Seventy-five percent of worldwide religious persecution is perpetrated against Christians, yet Christianity represents only approximately 30% of the world's population.  According to Open Doors International, the top ten oppressors are Islamic or humanist countries.  North Korea (humanist) is the most religiously oppressive country, followed by the Islamic countries of Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Maldives, Yemen, Iraq, Uzbekistan, and (humanist) Laos.
If Islam is peaceful, what about jihad?
Many Muslims and Humanists will assert that Islam is peaceful and that jihad is only an internal struggle to find peace with God.  A textual analysis of the Bukari Hadith indicates that 97% of jihad references are to physical (combat) jihad, and only 3% to spiritual jihadⁱⁱ.  Further, the Islamic doctrines of taqiyya (deception) and hudna (breaking treaties when circumstances are favorable to Islamic objectives) clearly illustrate a strategy to deceive the ignorant and credulous.
Jihad is a successful strategy.
Muhammad had approximately 150 converts to Islam after ten years of his efforts in Mecca.  However, after journeying to Medina and becoming a physical (combat) jihadist, he acquired 100,000 converts over the next ten yearsⁱⁱⁱ.  Moreover, the first hundred years after Mohammed's death gave rise to the physical jihad of his disciples, who destroyed or converted approximately 3,200 churches via plunder and conquest until Islam was defeated at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D.
Effects of worldview.
Detroit used to be an all-American city with the highest per capita income in the 1950s.  However, the advance of unions (private and public), growing corruption of secular interests, and significant growth in the Arab-Islamic population have resulted in the collapse of a once-great city.
Great Britain is the best international example of humanist-Islamic cooperation.  Great Britain was the leading empire in the 19^th century, and the British pound was the world's reserve currency.  But Great Britain is now a shadow of its former self.  Will America follow the secular humanist model of Great Britain and experience a similar decline?
Samuel Huntington summarized the problem in his classic tome, titled The Clash of Civilizations, when he said, "Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power."
There are evil, incompetent, and indifferent combatants in this worldview war.  Evil combatants (radical Islamists and secular humanists) do bad things on purpose.  Incompetent combatants (secular Christians) do bad things by accident.  Indifferent combatants (majority of Americans) don't care whether others do good or bad as long as their personal peace and prosperity is not disturbed.  The evil combatants use the incompetent and indifferent to accomplish their goals for society.
What, then, should we do?
Judeo-Christian believers must educate themselves (and others) and engage the culture (schools, churches, synagogues, families, government, and communities) to reverse secular humanism and slow the progress of Islamic cultural and physical jihad in the U.S.  We must focus our efforts on the incompetent and indifferent population within the U.S. if we are to defeat those who are evil combatants.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_worldview_war.html#ixzz2lTYSX1T3
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Kids, parents fight back after humanist group threatens another school over Christmas toy drive

When a national humanist organization threatened to sue SkyView Academy for collecting toys for needy children, students at the Colorado charter school decided to fight back.
Officials at SkyView Academy announced earlier this week that they were dropping its participation in Operation Christmas Child, a ministry of Samaritan’s Purse. The project involves stuffing toys, candy and hygiene items to disadvantaged children around the world.
But the American Humanist Association said the school’s participation in the program violated the U.S. Constitution and sent a letter demanding they cease and desist.

Some critics have tried to compare the humanists to Ebenezer Scrooge – but that’s really unfair. Even Scrooge had a heart.

A small charter school in South Carolina received a similar letter last week and complied with the AHA’s demands.
Even though the project at SkyView was student-initiated and student-led, school officials determined they could not afford to pay for a court battle. The school’s board said they were disappointed by the humanists’ threats.
“We know this is a bullying tactic,” parent Kendal Unruh told me in a telephone interview. “We know that they target small schools that don’t have a budget to defend themselves. In lieu of a fist, they use a letter. We don’t have the money to invest in a long, costly legal battle.”
Unruh said it’s not coincidental that the South Carolina charter school received the exact same letter.
“Because they don’t like the message that we convey under our religious liberty, they have to shut us down and that is a tactic of bullying,” she said. “They don’t believe in equal access. They believe in shutting down anybody who doesn’t comply with their view of what society should be – and that is completely godless.”
And while the South Carolina school completely shut down their Operation Christmas Child project, the students at SkyView decided to defy the humanists.
On Wednesday afternoon, hundreds of students and parents and well-wishers staged a grassroots act of defiance. And while they meant to send a message to the humanists – it was really about making sure poor children had toys on Christmas day.
“The young people weren’t concerned about the politics of it,” Unruh told me. “They were asking, ‘what about the kids?’”
Instead of collecting the shoe boxes inside the school – the students just moved their entire operation outside – on a public sidewalk.
Volunteers loaded shoe boxes into trucks and vans, while students held a religious liberty rally – hoisting signs condemning the humanists.
“Humanists hate kids,” read one sign. Another declared, “You won’t steal Christmas from children.”
Unruh said yesterday’s rally was a great life lesson for the young students.
“You stand up to bullies,” she said. “You don’t stand down. You stand up for your belief system.”
Kimberly Saviano, a member of Humanists of Colorado, defended the national organization’s attack on the school.
“The school was promoting it and they were using school resources to get it together,” she told the newspaper. “By promoting it during school time, it gives the air of authority to it, as if the administration endorses the religion.”
But Unruh said Operation Christmas Child was student-organized and student-led – and based on what happened Wednesday – they aren’t going to be scared away by a bunch of non-believers.
“It’s the right thing to do,” she said. “It’s the merciful thing to do, the compassionate thing to do.”
Some critics have tried to compare the humanists to Ebenezer Scrooge – but that’s really unfair. Even Scrooge had a heart.
I’m not sure why the humanists want to take toys away from impoverished children. Maybe they suffered some sort of psychological crisis as young children. Maybe Santa gave them a pair of underwear instead of a Rock-Em, Sock-Em Robot.
In fairness, nobody likes getting Fruit of the Loom on Christmas Day.
But even worse than that, nobody likes a humanist who gets their underwear in a bunch over American school kids trying to make sure poor children have a merry Christmas.
In the words of the Grinch, “pucker up and kiss it,” humanists.

What a Nutbag!

Obama applauds Reid for filibuster overhaul, critics warn move will 'damage' Senate

   President Obama, openly expressing his frustration with Senate Republicans, applauded Majority Leader Harry Reid's success Thursday at invoking the so-called "nuclear option" as Democrats voted to strip the minority party of its primary power to block nominations -- the filibuster. 
Obama, even invoking former President Bush, said it's critical to "change the way that Washington is doing business."
But Republicans and even some Democrats warned that the Senate may have just opened a Pandora's box -- and with little debate, approved a change that could haunt the chamber for years to come.
"This was nothing more than a power grab," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
In a rapid-fire set of developments on Thursday, the Senate narrowly approved a rule change that would limit the ability of the minority party to block key presidential appointments. Instead of needing 60 votes to break a filibuster, Democrats will now need only 51.
Speaking Thursday from the White House briefing room, Obama said the change was needed to deal with Republicans' "unprecedented pattern of obstruction." He cited the record of George W. Bush, claiming his predecessor had an easier time getting nominees confirmed.
Obama cited, among other stand-offs, the bid by Republicans to filibuster his nomination of Chuck Hagel, a former GOP senator, for Defense secretary.
"For the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal," he said.
Republicans, though, argued that while it took Bush an average of 211 days to get a nominee confirmed, it's taken Obama 228 days -- just 17 days more. Judicial nomination statistics show that Obama has a confirmation percentage of 76 percent -- though majority leaders have had to try to break a filibuster far more in the last five years than in recent decades.
Following the vote Thursday, even some Democrats emerged as tough critics of the decision.
While Republicans were furious that their ability to hold up appointments had been scrambled, moderate Democrats were concerned more about how Reid was able to pull off the maneuver.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., one of three Democrats who opposed the move, said it could "permanently damage" the Senate.
"This institution was designed to protect -- not stamp out -- the voices of the minority," he said.
Reid used what is known in Senate slang as the "nuclear option." To change Senate rules of this kind, it typically takes 67 votes. But Reid used a highly controversial shortcut and did it with just 51 votes.
Retiring Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a prominent and influential moderate, put out a 2,300-word statement explaining in great detail why Reid's action Thursday could cause lasting damage.
"Changing the rules, in violation of the rules, by a simple majority vote is not a one-time action," he warned. "If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules that bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation."
Levin argued that the move opened the floodgates for the majority to change important rules on a whim going forward.
"Today, we once again are moving down a destructive path," he said. "Pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach which is central to our system of government."
Levin made clear that he thinks Republicans were acting irresponsibly by blocking Obama's judicial nominees, and supports getting those nominees an up-or-down vote.
But he said there were other ways for Reid to achieve that, including by forcing GOP foes to stage an old-fashioned filibuster on the floor.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the other Democrat to oppose the rule change.
The filibuster, for better or worse, has been a defining feature of the Senate for decades. While this makes the Senate one of the slowest-moving legislative bodies in the world, it also prevents legislation and appointments from moving too fast.  
The vote on Thursday vastly reduces the power of the minority to stall nominations and makes it easier for federal judges to get lifetime appointments. The move would not affect Supreme Court nominees.
The late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., presented a powerful case against changing the rules back in 2010, when he said doing so would "destroy the uniqueness of this institution."
"In the hands of a tyrannical majority and leadership, that kind of emasculation of the cloture rule would mean that minority rights would cease to exist in the U.S. Senate," he said. Bailey Comment: "This is just another step towards Obama Dictatorship".

The University of Colorado

The University of Colorado, which has a reputation for liberal politics, has banned discrimination based on political affiliation -- giving greater protection to students and faculty who speak their minds while on campus.
The policy is believed to be a first for any public college or university, and could help protect campus conservatives who might fear retribution for expressing their views in the classroom, or in written assignments.
While the measure was sponsored by two Republicans, the change was unanimously passed by the entire Board of Regents.
Regent Sue Sharkey, who spent months working on the policy change, points out: "This just wasn't a Republican or conservative initiative. Rather, we as a board came together as Democrats and Republicans to be unified."
Sharkey says it covers students and faculty, "to ensure... we were honoring their First Amendment rights and they could speak out on their political views and not feel they would be discriminated against based on that."
She recounted hearing stories from members of the campus community who told her about feeling diminished or silenced, unable to comfortably express their views.
The regents have also passed a resolution to conduct a campus survey. The study is expected to take the temperature of the campus climate.
Sharkey explains it "will really take a look at discrimination and how pervasive is it. And rather than having just anecdotal stories from students or faculty, we really want to find out how broad this is."
The school is also home to the Ward Churchill scandal.
Churchill is a former professor who was fired after a protracted legal battle. He infamously referred to victims of the 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmanns" – a reference to the Nazi leader.
Attorney David Lane represented him. Asked for reaction to the anti-discrimination policy change, Lane does not mince words: "Well, I wonder where they were when Ward Churchill needed that protection, frankly.
“It's called the First Amendment ... but I fully support the concept that people should not lose their jobs, their government jobs on a government campus, like the University of Colorado, based on their ideas or their speech. I'm all in favor of that,” he said.
Now if someone feels discriminated against for their political views or affiliation, he or she will be able to file a complaint with the office of non-discrimination and have it investigated.

How low can it go? ObamaCare poll numbers drop -- again

President Obama is struggling to stop the steady slide in public support for his health care law, as yet another poll shows public approval of the law -- and his job performance -- hitting a new low.
The survey from CBS News depicts a startling drop in support for the Affordable Care Act. Approval dropped to 31 percent, down 12 points since October.
According to the poll, the president's approval rating also slipped to 37 percent, from 46 percent just last month.
Both figures represent the lowest of Obama's presidency in CBS polling.
While Republicans are united in their opposition to the health care law, the latest numbers reflect new skepticism among Democrats and independents.
Obama has been facing criticism from his own party for both the failures of HealthCare.gov as well as cancellation notices that have gone out to those on the individual market whose policies did not make the cut under ObamaCare's new standards. The president last week gave insurance companies a one-year extension, allowing them to re-offer those out-of-compliance plans.
But it's unclear how many insurance commissioners and companies will consent, given the difficulties of making the sudden switch after years of planning. The president plans to meet with insurance commissioners on Wednesday afternoon.
The CBS News poll followed a Washington Post-ABC poll that showed Obama's job approval rating at a meager 42 percent -- and his disapproval rating at 55 percent, the worst of his five years in office.
That figure matches the disapproval rating he received in a recent Fox News poll.
Among women, who were some of the president's core supporters during the 2012 campaign, the president is also losing traction. The Washington Post-ABC poll showed just 44 percent of women approve of the job he's doing, while 52 percent disapprove.
Amid the downturn in the numbers, Obama has tried to rally his base -- and his base has tried to rally for him. An email from MoveOn.org went out on Wednesday warning the ObamaCare problems have triggered a "Washington feeding frenzy."
"President Obama is doing all he can to save Obamacare, but he can't do it alone. He needs us to join him and fight back," the email said, appealing for money.
Speaking Wednesday at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council meeting in Washington, Obama noted that nobody in Washington is doing particularly well in the polls right now. Congress is more unpopular than the president, according to most polls.
But Obama stressed that the administration must fix the health care website, and acknowledged some concern over signing up enough people to make the new marketplaces work.
"It's something that we have to pay attention to," Obama said.
The CBS poll of 1,010 adults was conducted Nov. 15-18, and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Bailey Comment: " Wow! And believe it or not most of these polls come from the far left media "!

Air Force drops 'So Help Me God' from oaths

The Air Force Academy has admitted they removed the phrase “so help me God” from three oaths in the 2012 edition of their official cadet handbook, Fox News has learned.
The revelation came after more than two dozen members of Congress sent a letter to Academy Supt. Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson demanding that she explain why the phrase was removed.
The lawmakers contend the 2012 edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook excludes the phrase ‘so help me God’ in the Cadet’s Oath of allegiance, the Oath of Office for Officers and the Oath of Enlistment.

Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.

“The Constitution does not require that this phrase be scrubbed from the oath,” read the letter drafted by Rep. Jim Bridenstein (R-Okla.) and signed by 28 lawmakers. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion’ however, the inclusion of the phrase ‘so help me God’ in an oath of service does not rise to this level.”
Bridenstein said “editing the oath for all Academy students is extreme and unnecessary, and does a disservice to the countless individuals who wish to include the phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and country.”
Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.
“It was an editorial oversight,” he said. “We learned within the last few weeks there was a problem.”
Vidal said there was no reasoning behind the omission and there was no forethought.
“Whoever was doing the editing didn’t catch it,” he said.
He said next year’s edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook will be revised and will include the phrase “so help me God.”
Last month, the Air Force Academy was embroiled in another controversy involving “so help me God” after they decided to make it an optional part of the Honor Oath. The revision was made following a complained from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
The lawmakers directed Johnson to provide information on why changes were made to the Honor Oath and why a poster bearing the words “so help me God” was removed from the Academy.
MRFF President Mikey Weinstein had filed a complaint about the poster. Approximately 68 minutes after he complained, Johnson ordered the art work removed. That decision did not set well with lawmakers.
“We ask that you restore the poster bearing the oath in full to its original location as an honorable reflection of the oath of service,” the lawmakers wrote.
After the Honor Oath was revised, Johnson released a statement affirming the right of Airmen to “freely practice and exercise their religious preference – or not.”
“Here at the Academy, we work to build a culture of dignity and respect,” she stated.
Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he’s received calls from concerned parents of cadets – lamenting the change in the oaths.
“This phrase is a deeply-rooted American tradition – begun by George Washington as the first president of the United States and now stated by many who take an oath of service to our country,” Crews said. “The removal of this phrase is a disservice to the countless men and women who wish to include this phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and their country.”
And while Crews said he respects the right of cadets not to say the word ‘so help me God’, he pointed out the law requires that the words remain part of the oath.
If that’s the case – why were they removed and who gave the order?
Let’s hope these lawmakers can root out the anti-religious forces that have infiltrated the Air Force Academy. It’s high time someone put a stop to the religious cleansing of the Armed Forces.

Medical Miracle

Pelosi, fellow Democrats jump in to defend president over ObamaCare

California Rep. Nancy Pelosi -- one of President Obama’s most ardent Capitol Hill supporters -- and other Democrats on Sunday defended the president’s handling of ObamaCare amid widespread criticism, particularly his pledge that Americans could keep their health insurance.
“Democrats stand tall in support of the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The House minority leader’s comments follow a particularly bruising week for the president and his signature health care law that included the acknowledgement that only 106,000 Americans have so far signed up for ObamaCare, in large part because of the problem-plagued healthcare.gov website.
The report was followed by the president on Thursday qualifying his promise before he signed ObamaCare into law in 2010 that Americans could keep their existing health plans.
“There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate,” he said during a press conference in which he proposed a one-year extension on existing health plans that failed to garner overwhelming support.
Pelosi, the former House speaker, also dismissed questions about fellow Democrats up for reelections in 2014 having to defend ObamaCare to voters back home.
“I don't think you can tell what will happen next year,” she told NBC, adding Democrats nevertheless won’t run from the issue.
Pelosi suggested Republicans will have to answer for their part in the partial government shutdown that she says hurt the economy.
She also downplayed 39 House Democrats voting Friday on a bill to allow insurance companies to continue offering plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare, saying a similar number of them voted on legislation to delay the law’s employer mandate.
New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte said later in the show that ObamaCare is rife with problems, even by the president’s own admission, regardless of what Pelosi might say.
“No matter how Speaker Pelosi tries to spin this, [ObamaCare] is a mess,” she said.
South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn told CNN's "State of the Union" that most party members who voted in support of the House Republican bill Friday did so to "insulate themselves against sound bites."  
Many of them are in competitive races next year and don’t want GOP challengers to have campaign ads portraying them as unwilling to fix the ObamaCare problem, Clyburn appeared to suggest.
New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told ABC’s “This Week” that Obama can regain the public’s trust.
“Of course he can,” she said.
Gillibrand also said she didn’t feel misled by the president but allowed, “He should have just been more specific.”

2014?

Democrats feel political heat despite ObamaCare ‘fix’

President Obama's fix to reverse millions of insurance cancellation notices may have eased slightly the pressure he faces, but Democrats at state level still face political trouble and fear what it may mean for the 2014 midterm elections.
One such Democrat is West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall. The 19-term veteran, a perennial target in a GOP-shifting state, was one of many Democrats who recited to constituents Obama's assurance that they could keep insurance coverage they liked under the 2010 health care overhaul.
This promise proved untrue and ignited an uproar that eventually forced Obama to reverse himself and on Thursday propose the fix that he claims will allow consumers to keep their plans. The debacle has sent many Democrats scrambling into political self-preservation mode ahead of the 2014 elections.
Rahall was among 39 Democrats who, despite an Obama veto threat, voted Friday for a Republican measure that would let insurers continue selling policies to individuals that fall short of the health care law's requirements. It was approved 261-157.
"I'm concerned about my integrity with voters who have returned me here for 38 years. They know me enough to know I wouldn't purposely mislead them," Rahall said this past week. "They have that confidence in me, and I want them to continue to have that confidence in me."
Republicans have been emboldened by Obama's reversal and the Democrats' scramble for cover, with GOP strategists digging through old statements and video clips in the hope of capturing Democrats offering the same promises that landed Obama in political trouble
An example of this is Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader – a Democrat who has criticized the president over the botched ObamaCare rollout. According to Politico, Schrader found himself the target of Republicans after it was revealed that language on the congressman’s website stating, “If you are insured and happy with your coverage, nothing changes,” had been deleted.
"There's nothing more damaging than when your word is devalued and people think they were misled," said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee. "And especially damaging is when it actually affects you and your family. So in terms of degree of impact, this is off the Richter scale."
Top Democrats, who need to gain 17 seats to retake the House majority, brush off the suggestion, saying that next November's elections are still far away. They say by then, the health care law will be to their advantage because it will be working well.
Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., who leads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said his party will focus the campaign on the economy, Democratic efforts to fix it and the GOP's preference for cutting Medicare and granting tax breaks to the wealthy.
The Republican emphasis on ObamaCare's problems "from a partisan perspective gins up the Republican base. But it alienates independent and moderate voters," said Israel, who said those voters "are more interested in solutions."
“For consumers who want to keep their health care plans, President Obama has offered a commonsense fix – and Democrats worked hard to make sure that pledge is supported,” Jesse Ferguson, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee deputy executive director, told Politico. “Republicans are now being unmasked as dishonest after they doubled down rhetorically on the importance of helping Americans keep their plan – but opposed President Obama’s fix because of their knee-jerk ideological obsession with opposing everything with President Obama’s name on it.”
Other Democrats are not so confident.
Martin Frost, a former Texas Democratic congressman who headed the House Democratic campaign committee, said many people still may lose their coverage because state officials have ample power over insurers. And he said the Obama administration cannot allow additional foul-ups.
"If I were still in Congress, I'd be concerned," Frost said.
Sensing an edge, the GOP plans to cut commercials featuring Democrats' promises that people could keep their health insurance.
America Rising, a GOP political action committee that compiles research on opposition candidates, is collecting video of Democrats' comments on the law. Some conservative groups are already running television spots, with Americans for Prosperity airing ads attacking Rahall and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., while defending Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., for opposing the law.
"It forces thousands to lose the plans they love and the doctors they know," says the 30-second spot running on television and radio in Rahall's district.
Though Democrats opposed the Republican measure 153-39, the vote was evidence of the pressure they feel over canceled policies.
On Thursday, Obama took the blame for the confusion, saying, "That's on me," not congressional Democrats. House Democratic leaders told reporters later that day that they had nothing to apologize for.
Even so, most House Democrats felt Obama's action was not enough and demanded a vote on a Democratic proposal.
"They want to be on record," said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa. "Members are not judged by administrative fixes. Members are judged by their voting records."

Seattle voters elect socialist to city council

SEATTLE –  Seattle voters have elected a socialist to city council for the first time in modern history.
Kshama Sawant's lead continued to grow on Friday, prompting 16-year incumbent Richard Conlin to concede.
Even in this liberal city, Sawant's win has surprised many here. Conlin was backed by the city's political establishment. On election night, she trailed by four percentage points. She wasn't a veteran politician, having only run in one previous campaign.
But in the days following election night, Sawant's share of the votes outgrew Conlin's.
"I don't think socialism makes most people in Seattle afraid," Conlin said Friday.
While city council races are technically non-partisan, Sawant made sure people knew she was running as a socialist -- a label that would be political poisonous in many parts of the country.
Sawant, a 41-year-old college economics professor, first drew attention as part of local Occupy Wall Street protests that included taking over a downtown park and a junior college campus in late 2011. She then ran for legislative office in 2012, challenging the powerful speaker of the state House, a Democrat. She was easily defeated.
This year, though, she pushed a platform that resonated with the city. She backed efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15; called for rent control in the city where rental prices keep climbing; and supports a tax on millionaires to help fund a public transit system and other services.
During her campaign, she condemned economic inequality, contending that some people aren't benefiting from the city's declining jobless rate, ongoing recovery from the recession, and downtown building boom.
"She's passionate about her values," Conlin said.
Research showed no socialist candidate had won a citywide office in the past 100 years. The last socialist candidate to make it into the general election was in 1991 and was defeated, said Scott Cline, the city's archivist. Bailey Comment: No doubt that America is now going downhill fast.

House Republicans introduce resolution to impeach Attorney General Holder

A group of congressional Republicans introduced a resolution Thursday to call for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder, alleging Holder had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” during his tenure as head of the Justice Department.
The resolution was introduced by Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, who claims Holder has committed “the offenses of lying to Congress, refusing to comply with a subpoena, and failing to fulfill his oath of office.”
Olson cites Holder’s unwillingness to cooperate during the investigation into the botched Operation “Fast and Furious, his refusal to prosecute those involved IRS targeting of conservative groups, his failure to enforce laws including the Defense of Marriage Act, and his “false testimony” about the DOJ’s monitoring of Fox News journalist James Rosen as articles that are grounds for impeachment.
“For nearly five years, Attorney General Holder has systematically deceived Congress and destroyed the credibility of the Justice Department in the eyes of the American people,” Olson said in a statement.
Olson was joined by 19 other Republican representatives in the resolution.
One House Democrat spoke out against the resolution before it was introduced Thursday, calling it “the most fundamental abuse of the impeachment power.”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a former federal prosecutor who led the Senate in the impeachment of a federal judge in 2010, said the articles of impeachment in the resolution are simply a list of “debunked conspiracy theories.”
“It is the height of irresponsibility to use the Congress's power to impeach office holders – a power that has been used very rarely and judiciously – to settle political scores,” Schiff said. “The House Republican Leadership should disavow this misguided effort immediately; it is far more damaging to Congress and its impeachment authority than to anyone in the administration.”
The DOJ did not respond to requests for comment from Fox News.

Details emerge about Americans badly injured in Benghazi attack

In addition to the four Americans killed in the Benghazi terror attack last year, at least two other Americans were severely injured in the fighting that night, Fox News has learned.
The injuries were sustained by U.S. personnel after mortars struck the CIA annex rooftop they were defending. Fox News is told that one former government contractor -- who is expected to testify this week along with four other contractors in classified sessions on Capitol Hill -- has had multiple surgeries since the attack and has still not regained full use of one arm.
The blood loss after the attack was so severe that a source close to the contractor said it had been life-threatening.
In addition to former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were killed defending the Annex, at least two other Americans were severely injured on the roof top.
 Diplomatic Security Agent David Ubben – who as late as August was still recovering at Walter Reed Medical Center in suburban Washington - was so severely injured fighting alongside the Seals that he has undergone multiple surgeries.  The protocol is often referred to as a “leg or limb salvage.”
Little is known about those who survived the Benghazi attack. The State Department confirmed in March, after multiple inquiries by Fox News, that a total of three diplomatic security agents, as well as a State Department contractor, were among the Americans injured during the terrorist assault which killed the two former SEALs, Ambassador Chris Stevens, and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.
The latest details are emerging as the House Intelligence Committee hears this week from contractors who were on the ground in Benghazi. Fox News has learned that they will give their accounts in closed, classified sessions on Wednesday and Thursday.
Two contractors were expected to appear Wednesday, and three former government contractors from the CIA annex are expected Thursday, according to sources familiar with the meetings.
In a press release from earlier this year, the intelligence committee appeared to identify this week's witnesses, adding that they included those who signed a book deal earlier this year. "The Subcommittee will pursue interviews with three additional CIA personnel who are publishing a book and whose public comments suggest possible contradictions with testimony the Intelligence Committee has received on the record," the release said.
The lawyer who represents the authors would not comment on their Capitol Hill appearance, adding that they were part of "an elite security team" in Benghazi.
While the sessions are not open to the public, sources told Fox News that the timeline offered by some of the contractors may differ from the public narrative that there were two distinct waves to the attack -- first at the consulate at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time and then at the CIA annex the following morning, separated by a lull in the fighting.
The fighting was characterized to Fox News as being more "constant, consistent" throughout the attack's seven-hour duration.  If there was no lull in the fighting, it raises more questions about the lack of a significant military response to the Benghazi assault -- during that time, Stevens' whereabouts were unknown.
In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner last week, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., stated that any discrepancies demanded further investigation. "If some answers differ substantially from the established narrative and timeline of the attack, then it would be warranted to take new measures to complete the investigation and synthesize the information obtained by the Intelligence Committees and other committees investigating the Benghazi attack."

Top Democrat joins push to keep health plans after Clinton's ObamaCare critique

An influential Democratic senator is backing the push to restore insurance plans canceled due to ObamaCare, on the heels of a a blunt critique from Bill Clinton on President Obama's handling of the health care law's rocky rollout.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Tuesday she is cosponsoring a bill by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., that would force insurance companies to reinstate canceled policies that Obama repeatedly vowed that people could keep.
"The Affordable Care Act is a good law, but it is not perfect," Feinstein said in a statement. "I believe the Landrieu bill is a commonsense fix that will protect individuals in the private insurance market from being forced to change their insurance plan."
Feinstein said she has received 30,842 calls, emails and letters from constituents about the cancellations and premium increases. A man from Rancho mirage told Feinstein that he is being forced to spend over $400 more per month for a similar policy.
“I believe consumers should be allowed to choose their plans, and they should be adequately informed about those choices," Feinstein said. "Consumers must be told what their coverage does and does not include so families don’t find themselves paying for an insurance policy they believe is comprehensive when in fact it is not."
Separately, House Republicans have scheduled a Friday vote on a proposal by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., that would allow insurers to continue selling insurance plans that would otherwise be banned under the law.
On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president's team is trying to figure out a way to offer relief to the millions of Americans who have received cancellation notices,  though in doing so, it could inadvertently build the case for those calling for a delay in the law's implementation.
The statement comes after former President Clinton, in an interview with the site Ozy.com, said Obama should live up to his promise to Americans that if they like their health plans, they can keep them.
"So I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Clinton said.
Asked Tuesday if Obama agreed, Carney said: "The answer's yes."
Carney referred to Obama's comments to NBC News last week, when the president apologized for the cancellation notices and said the administration was looking at a "range of options" to address the issue.
But Carney spoke in additional detail on Tuesday, saying the president's team is specifically trying to help those Americans who have been forced off their plans into more expensive coverage which they might struggle to afford.
"The president has tasked his team with looking at a range of options, as he said, to make sure that nobody is put in a position where their plans have been canceled and they can't afford a better plan, even though they'd like to have a better plan," Carney said.
It's unclear, though, how the administration could go about doing that. Insurance companies are the ones canceling policies -- due to new requirements under the health care overhaul -- and would likely have to be involved in any effort to restore coverage.
Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman with America's Health Insurance Plans, told FoxNews.com that all the myriad plans to reverse or stop the cancellation notices raise questions about how that would be achieved. He said in many cases, changes to existing policies have already been filed with state regulators and consumers have been notified.
"That's a lot to go back and unwind," he said, noting that any modified health plans would have to be reviewed and approved by state regulators.
"That typical process takes many months," he said.
The insurance industry generally does not support any delay in the implementation of the ObamaCare insurance mandates, out of concern that a delay would deprive them of much-needed customers at a time when they're dealing with the cost of additional coverage requirements.
But any effort to overhaul the cancellations might require an extended timeframe.
In his interview Tuesday, Clinton defended the health care law as a whole, but explained how the broken promise on health coverage can hurt young people. He relayed the story of a young man who said his individual market plan was canceled and replaced with one whose premiums were twice as high. Though his deductibles and co-pays were lower, that savings is only realized if he gets sick, Clinton explained.
Obama, in explaining the cancellation notices, has clarified that under ObamaCare, policies could be canceled if they had been altered in any way since the passage of the law.
That nuance was not included in the president's initial explanations.
The administration argues that while some are losing their current coverage, those plans will be replaced by better-quality insurance. The flip side is that they could be more expensive.

Middle Class

Fewer than 50,000 have signed up for insurance on ObamaCare site

Fewer than 50,000 Americans have thus far bought a health-care plan on the problem-plagued ObamaCare website according to an insurance industry report, representing only a fraction of the half-million enrollees the administration apparently wanted the first month.
The number was reported first Monday by The Wall Street and confirmed by Fox News, which was told the final reporting day was Nov. 3.
The Department of Health and Human Services issued a prompt response, saying officials could not confirm the numbers.
“We have always anticipated that initial enrollment numbers would be low and increase over time,” said agency spokeswoman Joanne Peters. “And, as we have said, the problems with the website will cause the numbers to be lower than initially anticipated."
Healthcare.gov went live Oct. 1 and was immediately plagued with such problems as slow response time, volume-induced crashes and supplying incorrect information.
Official have since called in private technical experts and have taken the site off line in non-peak hours to perform maintenance and improve the situation.
The federal site handles insurance enrollment for 36 states without their own sites.

The administration has set a goal of signing up seven million Americans for insurance by next March, when open enrollment ends.
The Journal reported the number of enrollees thus far could be as low as 40,000 and  that the administration’s goal of 500,000 enrollees in October is based on an internal memo cited last week by Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp.
The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said in a statement the low numbers are not surprising because of the website's problems.
"Whether it's higher costs, fewer choices or simply website glitches, it's becoming more clear with each passing day that this law isn't ready for prime time and should be delayed," Hatch said.

Oldest known WWII veteran honored at Arlington ceremony

The oldest known veteran of World War II was honored with a thunderous standing ovation during a ceremony Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, as President Obama and the rest of the nation paid tribute to 107-year-old Richard Overton's service.
The tribute to Overton was a stand-out moment at Monday's Veterans Day ceremonies, as details emerged about Overton's visit. Earlier in the day, the Texas man met with Obama and Vice President Biden, along with other veterans, during a White House breakfast.
"This is the life of one American veteran, living proud and strong in the land he helped keep free," Obama said during the ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.
Though he uses a wheelchair, Overton can still stand -- and did so, as the crowd applauded his service.
Overton served in the Pacific during World War II, and Obama regaled the audience with his accomplishments. "He was there at Pearl Harbor when the battleships were still smoldering. He was there at Okinawa. He was there at Iwo Jima," Obama said.
When he returned from the war, Overton went back to Texas, where he built a house for him and his wife -- the house he still lives in today. The president said Overton still rakes his own lawn, and still drives ladies in his neighborhood to church every Sunday.
According to a profile on Overton in USA Today, his attendance at Monday's ceremony was set up after Overton visited the World War II Memorial and Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial as part of an Honor Flight Austin trip back in May. Overton reportedly wondered what it would be like to meet the president, and the visit was later arranged.
During the war, Overton was a member of the Army's 188th Aviation Engineer Battalion and reportedly volunteered for service.
He attributes his longevity in part to drinking a tablespoon of whiskey in his coffee and smoking a dozen cigars a day, according to the article.
Obama used his remarks Monday to remind the nation that thousands of service members are still at war in Afghanistan. The war is expected to formally conclude at the end of next year, though the U.S. may keep a small footprint in the country.
As the Afghan war comes to a close, Obama said the nation has a responsibility to ensure that the returning troops are the "best cared-for and best respected veterans in the world." The country's obligations to those who served "endure long after the battle ends," he said.