A lasting, enduring, sustained and unwavering commitment?

Barack Obama Then:

"The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared."
Barack Obama - July 15, 2008

"The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat Al Qaeda [and] to support the democratically elected, sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waver, and that support will be sustained."
President Obama speaking at a White House press conference after meeting with Afghan President, Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari - March 6, 2009

Barack Obama Now:

"President Barack Obama warned that the US commitment to Afghanistan was 'not open-ended' after meeting his war cabinet to discuss the deployment of tens of thousands more troops.... 'The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended,' a White House official said, briefing journalists on Obama's latest round of talks with military chiefs."
AFP - November 11, 2009

"President Obama is pushing his national security team for more detail about an exit strategy for U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan... 'Obama wants to make clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended,' one source added."
NPR - November 11, 2009

As one senior Pentagon official stated back in August: "I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier. We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war."...

Obama: hard for Iran to make quick decisions

From Reuters:

An unsettled political situation in Iran may be complicating efforts to seal a nuclear fuel deal between Tehran and major world powers, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

Obama told Reuters in an interview that the United States had made more progress toward global nuclear non-proliferation in the last several months than in the past several years.

"But it is going to take time, and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues," he said at the White House.

Yep, you read that correctly:

As long as the protesters continue to create havoc and political instability in Iran, Obama can not be faulted for his inability to reach an agreement with Tehran.

Unfortunately, the evil protesters are not only meddling in Iran's internal affairs, they are also impeding Obama's efforts to make peace with the Mullahs.

The following is an excerpt from the Reuters interview:

QUESTION: I'd like to ask about Iran and North Korea. You won the Nobel Prize for your nuclear disarmament efforts but don't seem to be making a lot of progress on either. And one of the stumbling blocks seems to be China, in both cases. Can you convince the Chinese to get tougher? And if you can't, do you really expect progress anytime soon?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's very important to say that if by lack of progress you're suggesting we have not already eliminated nuclear weapons from the face of the earth in the first nine months of my administration, then that's true.

QUESTION: Come on, you've won the Nobel Prize. Surely, by now ...

QUESTION: What's taking so long?

OBAMA: ... I would strongly argue that we have made more progress on this issue over the last several months than we've seen in the last several years. But it is going to take time. And part of the challenge that we face is, is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues...

Indeed, Iran would gladly give up its nuclear ambitions, if only those protesters would just go away....

House Health Care Bill Aborted?

From Bloomberg News:

More than 40 House Democrats signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowing to vote against a final health overhaul measure if it includes abortion restrictions contained in legislation approved Nov. 7, said Representative Diana DeGette.

“We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose...,” says the letter, released by Democratic Representatives Louise Slaughter of New York and DeGette of Colorado. The two lead a caucus of lawmakers who favor abortion rights.

Libtalker, Ed Schultz: Why does Obama keep telling us how tough he is?

Libtalker, Ed Schultz: "I've noticed on a few stump speeches that he (Obama) tells us that he might be small, but he's tough. And I have thought about all of the past presidents. I haven't heard a president tell us how tough he is. Am I wrong? Tell me if I'm wrong. ... And I think that's rather strange, or unusual..." - (h/t - Radio Equalizer )



Apparently, Obama must listen to the Ed Schultz show.

George W. Bush Secretly Visits Fort Hood Victims

Former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura secretly visited Fort Hood Friday night and spent "considerable time" consoling those who were wounded in Thursday's shooting spree, Fox News reported on Saturday.

The Bushes entered and departed the sprawling military facility in secret, having told the base commander they did not want press coverage of their visit, a source told Fox News.

Meanwhile, President Obama has yet to visit the wounded...

Wonder what his excuse is this time around.....

Update: On Friday, President Obama visited with soldiers wounded in Afghanistan at the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre. The White House said the visit was planned before the Fort Hood massacre.

But why couldn't Obama visit the wounded at Fort Hood over the weekend? Well, on Saturday he was probably overly consumed with selling his health care plan on Capital Hill to worry about the health of the troops. And, late Saturday, the president retreated with his family to Camp David for an overnight excursion. And, on Sunday, lets see..., he probably had an important football game to watch....

ObamaCare endorsements: What the bribe was

From The Hill:

As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed[ed] to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the ’09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these — and the other endorsements — his package has received are all bought and paid for. Here are the deals:

The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians’ reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill.... With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill … or else!

The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill... The AARP is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.

Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP — which supposedly represents them — will make more money...

The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration...

So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.

$2.6 trillion price tag for House health care bill!

From the Heritage Foundation:

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

UPDATE -This just in:

The House of Representatives Saturday passed, by a vote of 220 to 215, historic health care legislation that would require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance and create a government-run health insurance plan to help them do so.

Just 1 republican voted for the bill. The Senate must also vote on its version of a bill, which is not expected until December at the earliest. President Obama later praised the passage of the $2.6 trillion bill saying, "it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit."...

Ahem......

Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran's Nuclear Weapons Facilitator

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on Thursday said United Nations inspectors found “nothing to be worried about” during their inspection of an underground nuclear facility near the Iranian city of Qom:

Mohamed ElBaradei’s assessment, the first word on what was found at the controversial site near Qom, came in the course of an interview with The New York Times...

Mr ElBaradei told the newspaper that his inspectors’ initial findings concurred with Tehran’s insistence that the plant had been built on a heavily fortified military site as a fallback in case its main plant was bombed, rather than to conceal a military use.

“The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things,” Mr ElBaradei said.

“It’s a hole in a mountain.” Mr. ElBaradei’s words will be met with disappointment in Western capitals, long critical of his leadership of the atomic watchdog as too soft on Iran.

Here's the problem with the latest findings:

ElBaradei is a fake phony, fraud, and a patent liar!

From the New York Times:

The UN nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting the Islamic Republic's scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian reported in its Friday edition.

The newspaper, citing what it describes as "previously unpublished documentation" from an International Atomic Energy Agency compiled dossier, said Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of a "two-point implosion" device.

The IAEA said in September it has no proof Iran has or once had a covert atomic bomb program.

The Vienna-based IAEA was not immediately available for comment on Thursday.
Iran's Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) were also unavailable for comment when contacted by Reuters.

The IAEA statement in September followed reports from the Associated Press quoting what it called a classified IAEA document saying agency experts agreed Iran now had the means to build atomic bombs and was heading toward developing a missile system able to carry a nuclear warhead...

Extracts of the dossier have been published before, but it was not known the dossier included documentation of such a sophisticated warhead, the newspaper said...

Here's what ElBaradei said in September:

With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon program in Iran.

At the Board of Governors´ meeting on 9 September 2009, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned that continuing allegations that the IAEA was withholding information on Iran are politically motivated and totally baseless...

However, as we mentioned before, the Guardian cited "what it describes as 'previously unpublished documentation' from the IAEA saying "Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of a "two-point implosion" device." And, the Associated Press - in September - quoted what it called a classified IAEA document saying agency experts agreed Iran now had the means to build atomic bombs and was heading toward developing a missile system able to carry a nuclear warhead

The question arises, why did ElBaradei try to conceal this information back in September? And, why has he suddenly changed his tune?

Clearly, ElBaradei is a fake and a phony, and his remarks [assurance] on Thursday about Iran's underground nuclear facility have absolutely no validity at all.

Now, as far as ElBaradei changing his tune, there may be something else playing out.

Obama may have put the squeeze on ElBaradei to reveal the goods on Iran's nuclear warhead program, in an effort to extract an agreement from Iran to ship its stockpile of low-enriched uranium abroad for processing.

Of course, as experts have already noted, such a concession would be folly on Obama's part because Iran has the capability to replenish it's uranium stockpile in little over a year's time.

In any case, Obama probably had enough information on Iran's nuclear warhead program to force ElBaradei on the issue. Conversely, he might not have had sufficient information about Iran's underground nuclear facility, and thus ElBaradei felt free to absolve the Iranians on that matter.

Or, perhaps, a more remote possibility: Obama is playing "Good Cop, Bad Cop", letting Ahmadinejad save face on his underground nuclear facility but denying him the opportunity to both develop a nuclear warhead and keep his stockpile of uranium.

I'm just theorizing and laying out all the possibilities. It's merely academic.

One final tidbit:

Obama is purportedly working hand in hand with Russian leaders to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, Julian Borger of the Guardian noted the following:

The apparent leap forward in [Iran's nuclear] warhead technology that these [IAEA]documents imply, point towards outside help and it will refocus attention on the issue of "foreign expertise" in weaponization that the agency raised in its reporting... last year.

I am reliably informed that the foreign expert under scrutiny was a Russian weapons specialist, whose presence in the country will raise questions once more of the nature of the relationship between the two countries.

Ah yes, Obama's pals, Comrades Putin, Medvedev and Lavrov.

Isn't it wonderful that we finally have a President who's willing to work with Iran's allies to disarm Iran? HOW SWEET!

Stimulus-related job numbers don't add up

A couple of interesting tidbits from the Chicago Tribune:

More than $4.7 million in federal stimulus aid so far has been funneled to schools in North Chicago, and state and federal officials say that money has saved the jobs of 473 teachers. Problem is, the district employs only 290 teachers.

"That other number, I don't know where that came from," said Lauri Hakanen, superintendent of North Chicago Community Unit Schools District 187.

The Obama administration last week released the first round of data designed to underpin the worthiness of its economic stimulus plan, which so far has directed $1.25 billion to Illinois schools. That money has helped save or create 14,330 school jobs in the state, the administration claimed.

But those statistics, compiled initially by the Illinois State Board of Education, appear riddled with anomalies that raise questions about their validity, according to a Tribune analysis... Many local school officials were perplexed by the stimulus data attributed to their districts.

In the official report, Wilmette Public Schools District 39 was credited with 166 jobs saved by stimulus aid. Superintendent Raymond Lechner said the number should be zero.

At Dolton-Riverdale School District 148, stimulus funds were said to have saved the equivalent of 382 full-time teaching jobs -- 142 more than the district actually has.

A similar discrepancy was found in data for Kankakee School District 111, where the stimulus report logged the equivalent of 665 full-time jobs saved.

"That's impossible," a top Kankakee school official said, adding that the entire payroll -- full and part time -- is 600 workers...

[To be fair, the Tribune also says that, for various reasons, there appears to be an under-count in reporting the number of jobs created or saved in Chicago...]

If my memory serves me correctly, Illinois is not the only state to have reported inflated job numbers with regards to its school system - which kind of makes you wonder, 'who's tinkering with the numbers, and why'? Are state officials fixing the numbers in order to gain favor with the President, which would then enable them to ask him for additional funds? Does the administration share any blame for these erroneous reports? Or is the whole thing just an honest mistake?

One thing is for certain, despite all the blatant errors, the administration continues to promulgate these fallacious numbers.

But here's another interesting - and, undoubtedly more important - tidbit:

In Schaumburg-based School District 54, Superintendent Ed Rafferty... warned that "unless there's a guarantee of continuation of (federal or state) money, the vast majority of these" newly-created/saved jobs "will be eliminated because there won't be local resources to fund them."

In other words, as soon as the stimulus funds dry up, all those newly-created [or saved] jobs will fall by the wayside.

Change we can believe in? Me no think so....

P.S. I seem to be in good company. The American Thinker also cited the Tribune article earlier today and highlighted both of the aforementioned points.

Election results unnerves moderate Democrats in Congress

"Last night, I think voters sent a clear message that the administration and Congress need to focus on the economy. We need to focus on creating jobs right now, and you don't do that by raising taxes on small business."
Democratic Rep. Dan Boren

Mr. Boren also called himself "a solid no" on Obama's health-care overhaul

"What the exit polls showed was real voter fatigue with how crowded the plate is. We need to take a deep breath, step back and clean the plate before we add to it."
Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly

"I do consider Virginia a bellwether state. I would encourage the leadership to get back to the center."
Rep. Gene Taylor, a conservative Democrat from Mississippi

"The American people get it. They know we're on an unsustainable fiscal course."
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

"I've always had pause" about health care overhauls and ramped-up government spending.
Sen. Ben Nelson, (D-Ne)

School Children Singing Praises to Obama

"Obama is fresh. Obama is cool... Obama in charge of the Oval Office. He told Bush and his cabinet to get off this - Obama is the man A – a-a-a-aay. Obama is President of the USA-aaaay. Tomorrow’s a new day – ay – ay- ay- ay...."



(H/T - Big Hollywood)

White House blames election results on "anti-incumbent fervor"

White House officials Wednesday defended Democratic setbacks in Tuesday's gubernatorial elections saying the election results weren't a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency, but rather a reflection of voters' concerns over high unemployment and the sad state of the economy, which, apparently, has no connection with the president's economic policies.

However, later in the day, an unidentified White House official came up with a different explanation: He attributed the election results to "anti-incumbent fervor."

The rationale behind his theory - I assume - is as follows:

Voting for a Democrat would be akin to rooting for the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series: Everyone loathes the Phillies because they are the reigning champions, so they root for the Yankees!

From the Politico:

Mike Bloomberg’s stunningly narrow re-election in New York was a ...profound embarrassment for a Democratic establishment – from the White House on down — that abandoned his rival, City Comptroller Bill Thompson, as a hopeless loser.

Bloomberg’s meager five-point win left Democrats pondering what might have been if New York’s Democratic donors hadn’t turned their back on Thompson, if its politicians had worked for him, and most of all if President Barack Obama had offered anything more than the lamest words of praise.

“Maybe one of those Corzine trips could have been better spent in New York. Who knows?" remarked New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who weighed his own run for mayor, referring to the White House’s devout attention to the New Jersey contest.

“Maybe Anthony Weiner should have manned-up and run against Michael Bloomberg,” shot back a White House official, who attributed the night’s results across the board to anti-incumbent fervor.

But guess who's gonna be the incumbent in the 2012 presidential election?

If you guessed Barack Obama, you are correct....

"Obama, Obama, you are either with them or with us!"

"Obama, Obama, you are either with them or with us!"
Opposition marchers - defying baton-wielding police at a government rally in Iran - calling on President Obama to pick a side, as he pursues talks with the Iranian regime.
AP - November 4, 2009

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror!"
President George W. Bush - at a press conference on November 6, 2001 - asserting there was no room for neutrality in the war against terror.


"We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs."
Barack Obama, reaffirming his commitment not to meddle in Iran's internal affairs, in a statement released by the White House on November 4, 2009 in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the seizing of the American Embassy in Tehran

Obama: "I Love Elections! It’s so much fun!"

OBAMA, IN 2006:

"My goal is every candidate I campaign for, I want to win. Every single candidate. I love elections! It’s so much fun! It’s even more fun when you’re not on the ballot.”
Senator Barack Obama in 2006 expressing exuberant joy after watching the election results of the midterm elections. Obama had just finished traveling coast-to-coast on behalf of Democratic candidates, and the Democrats had taken control of both the House and the Senate

NOVEMBER 3, 2009:

"President Obama is not planning to watch Tuesday nights election returns, Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod tell CNN. Obama is more likely to watch Tuesday night's Chicago Bulls game than any political coverage, according to Axelrod."
CNN's Political Ticker - November 3, 2009

GIBBS, KEANE: ELECTIONS WEREN'T A REFERENDUM ON OBAMA. DEMOCRATS WERE DEFEATED BECAUSE VOTERS WERE UNHAPPY WITH THE ECONOMY:

"The White House distanced itself Wednesday from Democratic losses in two states, saying the races for governor hinged on local issues and were not a referendum on President Barack Obama... White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that voters in both states went to the polls to work through "very local issues that didn't involve the president." The presidential spokesman said that voters were concerned about the economy...
AP

"Democratic Party chairman Tim Kaine said Mr Obama remained popular and that the party's losses reflected voter anxiety about the economy and jobs."
BBC

OBAMA AND THE ECONOMY:

"Public approval of Obama’s handling of the economy has slipped to 46 percent in an Oct. 30-Nov.1 CNN poll from 59 percent in March. Three elections today, for governor in New Jersey and Virginia and to fill a House seat in upstate New York, may provide an early test of voter sentiment about Obama..."
Bloomberg News - November 3, 2009

"Independents were a critical part of Obama's victory [for the presidency] in Virginia, New Jersey and across the country. But after more than a year of recession, they [independent voters] fled from Democrats in the two states, where the economy trumped all."
AP - November 4, 2009

OBAMA

"More West Virginia voters disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President than those who approve. According to a new voter opinion poll being released this week by MBE, 51% of registered voters in the state disapprove of the job President Obama is doing while 45% approve. One in five (20%) “strongly”approve of the president’s job performance and 36% strongly disapprove."
MBE [pdf] - September 1, 2009

"39% [of Virginia voters] say Obama campaigning for Deeds in Virginia makes them less likely to vote for the Democratic candidate. Just 24% say it makes them more likely to vote for Deeds, and 36% say it has no impact on their voting decision."
Rasmussen Reports - October 28, 2009

Past Ties Between White House and CBO Cause for Concern?

Yesterday, I cited an article from the AP which maintains that the health care bill, proposed by the House, would cost $1.2 trillion over a decade and would thus increase the federal deficit by at least $200 billion. This is in stark contrast with the Congressional Budget Office's optimistic forecast, which contends the health care bill would actually reduce the federal deficit by $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

Verum Serum, though, raises an important question about the CBO's objectivity in assessing the costs of health care reform.

Excerpted from Verum Serum:

Whether Democrats succeed in passing healthcare reform legislation in the coming weeks will, to a large part, depend on the final bill scoring by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)... However, there is an interesting connection between the White House and CBO leadership which does not seem to be widely known, and which may be cause for concern.

The current Director of the CBO is Douglas Elmendorf, a highly-regarded, Harvard trained economist. As you may know, the CBO Director who preceded Elmendorf was Peter Orszag, who now heads up the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Both Elmendorf and Orszag were senior fellows at the Brookings Institution prior to joining the federal government, but they share something else in common as well.

As it turns out, Orszag was the founding director of the Hamilton Project at Brookings, a multi-year research initiative focused on economic policy to “benefit more Americans”. When Orszag left Brooking for the CBO in early 2007, economist Jason Furman took over the reigns of the Hamilton Project. Furman departed in June 2008 when he accepted a position as director of economic policy for the Obama campaign. Who took over for Furman? If you guessed Doug Elmendorf, then you are correct.

Notably, healthcare reform was a significant focus of the Hamilton Project. Furman ultimately authored a book (Who Has the Cure? Hamilton Project Ideas on Health Care), and Elmendorf co-authored a paper with Furman which argued the benefits of “establishing universal health insurance”.

So you have three successive directors of a liberal-leaning policy initiative. Two of them are now very close economic advisers to the President. Orszag at the OMB, and Furman who is now Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. And then you have Douglas Elmendorf in charge at the CBO....

Ah yes, the good ol' reliable CBO......

Obama accused Bush of staging a photo-op with wounded troops in '07

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Rush Limbaugh suggested that President Obama's recent visit to Dover Air Force Base was nothing more than a staged photo-op. This elicited a torrent of outrage from pundits in the liberal mainstream media.

Conversely, when Obama made similar remarks about former president Bush, the mainstream media didn't even bat an eyelash.

As I noted in my previous post, in March of 2007, President Bush toured Walter Reed Army Medical Center after he had learned of the dilapidated conditions there and the poor quality of care that the patients were receiving - which prompted the following remark from Obama:

"The problems plaguing our military hospital system will not be solved with a photo-op."

But this particular remark didn't seem to bother the mainstream media.

Double standard?

Perhaps.

Or maybe it's just a severe case of selective amnesia.....

Obama's hypocrisy on Veterans' Care

From Reuters News Agency - March 30, 2007:

President George W. Bush apologized to wounded U.S. troops who endured dilapidated conditions and bureaucratic delays as he toured Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the flagship military hospital.

Bush, in his first visit to Walter Reed since a scandal over health care there erupted in February, met with some patients who had previously been at the outpatient building where the worst conditions were found.

"I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong," Bush said. "I apologize for what they went through and we're going to fix the problem."...

Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is also seeking his party's 2008 presidential nomination, accused Bush of being slow to tackle problems with veterans health care.

"The problems plaguing our military hospital system will not be solved with a photo op," Obama said in a statement. "Our military hospital system is in a state of crisis. Delays and rhetorical band-aids will not move us closer to a solution."

Likewise, the AP reported in June of 2008:

Barack Obama stopped by Walter Reed Army Medical Center Saturday to visit wounded war veterans, a group that he has said endures substandard care under the Bush administration...

Obama has criticized the Bush administration for its treatment of veterans... and has suggested Republican rival John McCain would continue Bush policies if elected.

The administration was roundly criticized last year after it was revealed that veterans at Walter Reed were housed in rundown accommodations and suffered neglectful care. Obama has said the country has failed its veterans by allowing such "second-rate conditions..."

During his remarks later Saturday before [a] Latino group, Obama said "we have to treat our veterans better.""We're betraying what I think is a solemn pact that we make with our veterans," he said.

However, today, the AP reported as follows:

Serious safety issues continued to plague a southern Illinois Veterans Affairs hospital even after major surgeries were suspended two years ago because of a spike in patient deaths, according to a federal report released Monday.

Surgeons at the VA medical center in Marion, Ill., performed procedures without proper authorization, patient deaths were not assessed adequately and miscommunication between staff members persisted, the Veterans Affairs Department's inspector general said in the report, which covers the fiscal year that recently ended...

"To think two years later, after all the promises and investigation, that Marion is still suffering is inexcusable," said Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat. "There are some awful things that have occurred there."

He and three other Illinois leaders wrote a letter Monday to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki demanding a meeting about the facility...

The inspector general's 30-page report said the hospital did not sufficiently monitor 87 percent, or 20 of 23 of its physicians, to ensure they could perform procedures competently. There also were problems with infection control — including a patient with a history of MRSA staph infections wrongly put in a room with two other patients and a shared a bathroom — outdated staff training, and poor medication management and patient data analysis...

The truth of the matter is, Obama's remarks in March of 2007, were right on the mark:

"Our military hospital system is in a state of crisis. Delays and rhetorical band-aids will not move us closer to a solution."

AP: House Health Bill will increase deficit by at least $200 billion

From the AP:

The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan...

"Now, add it all up," Obama said in a nationally televised speech in early September. "and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred repeatedly to the bill's net cost of $894 billion over a decade for coverage...

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the measure... would "not add one dime to the deficit."

"In fact," added Daly, "the CBO said last week that it will reduce the deficit both in the first 10 years and in the second 10 years."

However, now that the AP has informed us that the health care bill will cost over $300 billion more than [Pelosi and] the CBO' s estimate, it would seem the CBO's assurance of a reduced government deficit is misguided.

Here is what the CBO claims:

Enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period... The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage.

But in fact, if the AP is correct, the health care bill will cost $1.2 trillion, not $894 billion as cited by the CBO. Hence H.R. 3962 would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of $200 billion [rounded number].

Of course, this is only the AP's estimate. Lord knows what the real costs of this health care bill will be.

Rasmussen: Under Obama, Americans no longer believe the US is winning the "War on Terror"

According to a new Rasmussen poll, just 34% of voters believe the United States and its allies are winning the "War on Terror", down nine points from a month ago and 21 points from when Barack Obama first took office. At the time, 53% of voters said the U.S. held the advantage.

It should be noted, however, that there is a serious flaw with the latest Rasmusen poll. The problem is as follows:

According to the Obama administration, there is no such thing as "The War Against Terror". It is non-existent, merely hearsay, and nothing more than an illusion concocted by the GOP. Consequently, the US can not possibly be winning the aforementioned war. For indeed, it is merely a fictional war, a chimerical creation of a handful of delusional, right-wingers.....

Gitmo Detainees: We want to stay here!

Socialist leaders tend to believe that the masses are incapable of choosing their own destinies and understanding their own needs, hence, they'll force their beliefs and political agendas down their people's throats - whether they like it or not. Barack Obama, however, takes this phenomenon to a whole new level. He believes that the terrorist community is also incapable of assessing its own needs and that only he knows how to provide the terrorists with their much deserved comforts, luxuries and amenities:

From the Telegraph UK:

As President Barack Obama's deadline to close Guantánamo looms, some occupants of the notorious detention center would rather prolong their stay than be sent to maximum security prisons on the US mainland...

Despite its reputation, the regime at the Pentagon facility on Cuba's southern coast offers privileges that would not be enjoyed at the federal "supermax" prison at Florence, Colorado, the likely alternative for the most dangerous al-Qaeda suspects...

Peter King, a Republican congressman who visited earlier this year and wants the prison kept open, said that "if there's any scandal at Guantánamo, it is that the detainees are treated too well".

The 221 remaining inmates receive between four and 20 hours outdoor recreation in the Caribbean sun and anything from weekly to almost unlimited access to DVDs and receive three newspapers (USA Today, plus one Egyptian and one Saudi Arabian title) twice a week. Every bed has an arrow pointing towards Mecca and every cell a prayer rug...

The detainees' diet is exclusively Middle Eastern and halal, in observance of regional and religious sensitivities. Dates, olive oil and honey are provided daily and pita bread is baked on the premises. They drink the same bottled water as the prison's staff and have the same access as other prisoners to 16,000 books and 1,600 magazines held at the library.

An escorted tour of Guantánamo by the Daily Telegraph revealed that Camp 7's requested reading included Gardens of the World by Mick Hales, Fine Art Flower Photography by Tony Sweet and a copy of Birds and Blooms magazine, material in keeping with nature-bound leisure pursuits approved by conservative Islam. Two volumes of the Tales of the Arabian Nights were also in the pile. Tomes on Islamic theory are in plentiful supply and demand, said library staff.

At the low security Camp 4, detainees could be seen sitting in the yard chatting and hanging up their laundry. A new gravel football field was recently completed.

At Florence, Colorado, prisoners would also spend 22 ½ hours a day in a 9ft by 9ft cell with the only natural light coming from a skylight outside.Exercise would be limited to an hour and a half indoors five days a week and they would have minimal contact with others, including the 33 other international terrorists held there. An official study found that most inmates suffer psychological trauma from the severe isolation.

Since 2005 an Arab American cultural adviser, who for security reasons is identified only by the name of Zak, has been employed at Guantánamo to liaise with detainees.
He said that some detainees would rather stay put than go on trial in the US, where they would probably receive a life sentence or could wait years for a death sentence to be carried out.

"They know there will not be the same privileges as here," he said. "Given the choice of being sentenced forever in Guantánamo or moved to supermax, it is 'no, can I stay in Gitmo?'. Here they can be outside, they can smell the sea."

Truth be told, the Obamas and Chavezes of the world know darn well their policies are detrimental to the masses, but in spite of this, they continue to pursue their political agendas - even at the expense of the poor and hapless terrorists they purport to protect.....

Al-Marri's 6 year sentence is way too harsh, Just ask Eric Holder

Andrew McCarthy opines that Al Qaeda operative, Ali Saleh Kallah al-Marri's 6 year jail sentence, is way too lenient. I wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McCarthy, and I can prove that I am correct by borrowing an argument used by Eric Holder several years ago when he was in private practice, working as a defense attorney. But first, lets examine what Mr. McCarthy has to say on the matter:

Five months ago, when al-Qaeda jihadist Ali Saleh Kallah al-Marri pleaded guilty, it was obvious that the Justice Department had given him a sweetheart deal. On Thursday, a federal judge in Illinois dutifully finished the job. Al-Marri, a committed sleeper operative sent by our enemies to carry out a post-9/11 second wave of mass-murder attacks inside the United States, was given an appalling sentence: He’ll be eligible for release in about six years.

When al-Marri entered his plea back in May, Attorney General Eric Holder crowed that the case demonstrated the criminal-justice system’s capacity to confront and quell international terrorism. As I observed at the time, though, the plea bargain was a travesty...

In stark departure from prior Justice Department practice, Holder permitted al-Marri to plead guilty to providing material support for terrorism. The material-support offense is generally reserved for non-terrorist sympathizers who facilitate the jihad but are unlikely to carry out atrocities themselves. It is a significantly less serious charge than the crimes — the acts of war — that Marri had actually committed, such as full-fledged membership in the al-Qaeda conspiracy to kill Americans, as well as conspiracies to use weapons of mass destruction.

Because of Holder’s abandonment of past DOJ practice, al-Marri was looking at a maximum sentence of 15 years.... [The presiding judge] pronounced a sentence of a mere eight years... With various credits for good behavior and other reductions, al-Marri could be released, in the United States, in six years or so. And he’s got plenty of jihad left in him.

Many Justice Department lawyers, including Attorney General Holder, come from firms and institutions that spent the last eight years as defense counsel for terrorists. Should we be surprised that, even compared with the “terrorism is just a crime” era of the 1990s, terrorists have never had it so good?

However, while Andrew McCarthy may may have a valid point, I believe that al-Marri actually received a harsh sentence, according to Eric Holder's mind-boggling logic and his intentionally twisted interpretation of the law.

As I've mentioned previously on this blog, Eric Holder, was the leader attorney representing Chiquita International Brands against charges [filed by the US Justice Dept.] that it funneled $1.7 million in protection money to the AUC - a Colombian terrorist organization [and deemed as such by the US State Dept.] responsible for kidnapping and murdering thousands of Colombians and Americans alike - Eric Holder managed to arrange a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only paid a $25 million fine over five years. Not one of the six company officials who approved the payments received any jail time.

As Sean Hannity noted several months ago:

"What is raising the most eyebrows is the argument that Holder made as lead attorney in the ongoing civil case against Chiquita. According to court documents Holder wanted the case dismissed, because, quote: 'There is no clearly defined rule of international law prohibiting material support of terrorism. Indeed, there is not even consensus on the definition of terrorism'."

Hence, if we were to follow Mr. Holder's line of reasoning, al-Marri shouldn't have received any jail time at all. While it's true that Al-Marri was indeed a full-fledged member of al-Qaeda, who conspired to kill Americans, nevertheless, Eric Holder allowed al-Marri to plead guilty to merely providing material support for terrorism.

Hence, since, as Eric Holder so eloquently opined when he defended Chiquita International, "there is no clearly defined rule of international law prohibiting material support of terrorism" and "there is not even consensus on the definition of terrorism," al-Marri should have gotten off with a mere fine. But instead, the hapless terrorist has been sentenced to sit in jail for 6 years, which is not only totally unfair, it is also a travesty of justice. And undoubtedly Eric Holder shares this sentiment.

And as such Mr. McCarthy, I beg to differ with you and your line of reasoning. Al Marri shouldn't be going to jail at all, he should be a free man.

FREE AS A BIRD!...

Eric Holder tries to Silence Voices for School Choice

From the Weekly Standard via the Chicago Daily Observer:

President Obama isn’t taking kindly to a television ad that criticizes his opposition to a popular scholarship program for poor children, and his administration wants the ad pulled.

Former D.C. Councilmember Kevin Chavous of D.C. Children First said October 16 that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had recently approached him and told him to kill the ad.

The 30-second ad, which has been airing on FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and News Channel 8 to viewers in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, urges the president to reauthorize the federally-funded D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that provides vouchers of up to $7,500 for D.C. students to attend private schools.

The ad features Chavous and a young boy–one of 216 students whose scholarships were rescinded by the Department of Education earlier this year when the agency announced no new students would be allowed into the program. The ad also includes an excerpt taken from one of Obama’s campaign statements.

“I saw [Holder] at an event,” said Chavous. “He did ask me in front of others to pull the ad. My response was, ‘No, and I tell you what, if the president does the right thing, not only will we pull it but we will celebrate him.’ ”

Watch the School Choice Ad Here

Read full article at the Weekly Standard:

Pelosi: I've been for Single Payer for 30 years

"I've been for Single Payer for 30 years. When I first started out being for Single Payer, Medicare was 14 years old, it was an adolescent practically. Now it has become such a formidable part of the life of our seniors, [and] Single Payer can become disruptive to Medicare..."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, during a blogger conference call - October 29, 2009

Of course, if both Medicare and employer-based insurance ultimately fall by the wayside [as many predict will happen] because of the new health care legislation, there won't be a viable Medicare or employer-based insurance program to disrupt, and then, I suppose, Nancy Pelosi and her ilk would be at liberty to seek out the next best choice: a Single Payer option.

However, to be fair with Speaker Pelosi, she has never attempted to conceal her affinity for the Single Payer option. President Obama, on the other hand - in his weekly radio address on August 22 - asserted that a "government takeover of health care sounds scary to him," even though he professed to being a proponent of Single Payer health care in a speech to the AFL-CIO in 2003.

Here's what Obama said in June of 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan..., that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Here's what he said in his weekly radio address on August 22, 2009:

"We've all heard the charge that reform will somehow bring about a government takeover of health care. I know that sounds scary to many folks, it sounds scary to me too."

Of course, there may very well be a simple explanation to this apparent contradiction. Maybe Obama is just frightened of his own ideologies......

Bart Stupak, just a typical, wishy-washy Democrat

You gotta wonder why someone who says he is opposed to any kind of healthcare legislation that would fund abortions and who purports to be such a staunch pro-lifer, is unwilling to go the full distance to defend his moral principals. Then again, this particular individual happens to be a Democrat - I guess that explains his half-baked brand of morality:

From The Foundry:

Earlier today, The Foundry wrote about Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich) claim that he and like-minded, pro-life Democrats will work with Republicans to “torpedo healthcare reform unless he gets a vote to strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill,” as reported by The Hill.

That sounded like good news, but in an exclusive Foundry video of a town hall held in Cheboygan, Mich., on Saturday, it appears that Stupak intends to vote for the Democrats’ healthcare reform, even if it includes public funding for abortion.

"If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion, and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. OK, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district, could I vote for healthcare? Yes I still could."

That's a real sensible statement. He voted his conscience, stayed true to his principles and to the beliefs of his district, but could he vote for a healthcare bill that would fund abortions? Yes, he still could.

Sigh.....

However, in an interview on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Monday, Stupak said he and about 40 like-minded Democrats oppose public funding for abortion in health care:

"We believe, and the majority of the American people believe, that we should not be using public funds to pay for abortion coverage in health care."

It's a shame the unborn fetuses of the world never get a chance to vote their conscience....

Here's the aforementioned video. Note the jeering from Stupak's constituents:



Also see previous post: Obama prevaricates to Stupak about Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill

Obama prevaricates to Stupak about Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is leading a coalition of pro-life Democrats to insert abortion funding restrictions into the proposed health care reform legislation. Recently, President Obama had an interesting telephone conversation with Mr. Stupak.

From CNS News:

Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions. In his speech to the joint session of Congress, Obama directly rebutted the claim that the plan would fund abortions, calling it a “misunderstanding.” But in his later telephone conversation with Stupak, according to the congressman, Obama said that when he claimed in the speech that the plan would not fund abortions he was not talking about the House plan, he was talking about his own plan.

CNSNews.com read Stupak the verbatim transcript of President Obama’s joint-session-speech statement about abortion funding:

“And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Is that a true or false statement?”...

“I called him,” said Stupak. “I called the president--had a discussion with the president. And I read exactly what you just said. And he said: ‘What it says is “under my plan”’—meaning the president’s plan. And I said: ‘With all due respect, sir, you do not have a plan. The only plan we have out is the House plan.’ So, I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what.”.....

I wonder what Joe Wilson would have told the president, had he been on the other end of the line. Hmmm.....

Making Nice with the enemy, an ENCOURAGING sign, indeed!

While perusing an article in The Hill about Democrats in Congress frittering away their time with meaningless resolutions, including a resolution being taken up in the House today honoring the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius, I noticed that the House today is also voting on a Democratic resolution ENCOURAGING Iran to release the U.S. hikers detained on the Iranian border in late July.

That's right, you read that correctly:

"ENCOURAGING" Iran to release the detainees.

Here's the actual text:

Whereas on July 31, 2009, officials of the Government of Iran took 3 United States citizens... into custody near the Ahmed Awa region of northern Iraq, after the 3 United States citizens reportedly crossed into the territory of Iran while hiking in Iraq;

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress--

(1) ENCOURAGES the Government of Iran to allow [the detainees] to communicate by telephone with their families in the United States; and

(2) ENCOURAGES the Government of Iran to allow [the detainees] to reunite with their families in the United States as soon as possible.

During the presidential primaries, Joe Biden and several Democratic candidates expressed outrage over a congressional resolution which labeled the Iranian Revolutionary guards a terrorist organization. And apparently, the Dems have learned their lesson. The President and Vice President's Good Will gestures toward the enemy - including Obama's decision to release the “Irbil Five” Quds Force commanders who were coordinating terrorist attacks in Iraq - and Obama's Policy Of Appeasement are having a contagious and therapeutic effect on Democrats in Congress.

From here on, Congressional Democrats will appease the enemy and ENCOURAGE them to release Americans who've been taken hostage.

An ENCOURAGING sign, indeed!

The Obama Doctrine, so refreshing, and so therapeutic! Ahhh, it feels so good!

Can we say 'Death Panel'? "YES WE CAN!"

Rush Limbaugh cited the following article on his radio program on Tuesday. And Dick Morris discussed this point with Sean Hannity several weeks ago. But, in case you haven't heard about it, here's what you need to know.

From the New York Post:

Treating Seniors As 'Clunkers' - By Betsy McCaughey:

Everyone knows that if you don't pay to maintain and repair your car, you limit its life. The same is true as human beings age. We need medical care to avoid becoming clunkers -- disabled, worn out, parked in wheelchairs or nursing homes.

For nearly a half century, Medicare has enabled seniors to get that care. But ObamaCare is about to change that, by limiting what doctors can provide their aging patients.

The Senate Finance Committee health bill released last week controls doctors by cutting their pay if they give older patients more care than the government deems appropriate. Section 3003(b) (p. 683) punishes doctors who land in the 90th percentile or above on what they provide for seniors on Medicare by withholding 5 percent of their compensation.

President Obama and his budget director, Peter Orszag, have told seniors not to worry, claiming that Medicare spending could be cut by as much as 30 percent without doing harm. They cite the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare 2008, which tries to prove patients who get less care -- fewer hospital days, doctors' visits and imaging tests -- have the same medical "outcomes" as patients who get more care. But read the fine print.

The Dartmouth authors arrived at their dubious conclusion by restricting their study to patients who died. They examined what Medicare paid to care for these chronically ill patients in their last two years. By definition, the outcomes were all the same: death. The Dartmouth study didn't consider patients who recovered, left the hospital and even resumed active lives. It would be important to know whether these patients survived because they received more care.

The journal Circulation addresses that question in its latest issue (Oct. 16) and disputes the Dartmouth conclusion. Examining patients with heart failure at six California teaching hospitals, doctors found that hospitals giving more care saved more lives. In hospitals that spent less, patients had a smaller chance of survival. That's the opposite of what Obama is claiming and Congress is proposing. The Senate Finance bill establishes a formula that penalizes hospitals for high "Medicare spending per beneficiary" (Section 2001, p. 643). That may save money, but the California study suggests it will cost lives.

When Medicare started in 1965, the law forbade the federal government from interfering in treatment decisions. Doctors decided what patients needed, and Medicare paid for each treatment on a fee-for-service basis. Though this protection from government interference has been whittled away a bit, doctors and patients in Medicare still decide what state-of-the-art medical care they want.

The results are huge improvements in longevity and seniors' quality of life. Life expectancy at age 65 has jumped from 79 years to 84, while disability has steadily declined. Seniors enjoy more active lives than their parents owing to hip and knee replacements, angioplasty and bypass surgery, according to James Lubitz and Ellen Kramarow of the National Center for Health Statistics (Health Affairs, Sept./Oct. 2007). Obama adviser Dr. David Cutler reports that the heart medications and procedures Medicare patients have received over the last 20 years have been a "wise investment" resulting in "excellent value" (Health Affairs, Jan./Feb. 2007).

Cuts in future Medicare funding -- what Obama calls "savings" -- will mean less help in coping with aging and possibly shorter lives. Do we really want to treat our seniors like clunkers?

After citing this article on his radio program today, Rush asked:

'CAN WE SAY "DEATH PANEL"?!!!'

The answer to that question is:

"YES WE CAN!"

Rush noted that Obama and his cronies are trying to shift responsibility upon the physicians by forcing doctors - rather than themselves - to become the "Agents of Death". But ultimately -as Rush noted - this legislation was crafted by Obama and Democratic lawmakers.

"Can we say Death Panel?!"

"YES WE CAN!"

"THE OBAMA DEATH PANEL", INDEED!

Obama: "I will not rush Copenhagen decision!"

Update: Please note, the following post was written tongue-in-cheek, based on articles written in the AP and Times Online. Sorry, if you were confused.

Background material here, here, here, here and here:

From the A&P:

President Obama pledged on Monday not to rush a decision on whether to attend the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, as he weighs his options on what to do next in the troubled war on Climate Change.

"I won't put my political legacy in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary and until I am assured there will be a major breakthrough at the summit," Obama told a group of UN envoys and Greenpeace activists at the White House on Monday. He promised that if he ultimately decides to attend the summit it would be with defined goals and the manpower needed to get the job done.

Obama, who is in the process of weighing options put forward by his Green Energy adviser, that includes skipping the summit and delivering a video address from the Oval Office - while pledging to increase carbon taxes here in the US - spoke of the possible dangers and sacrifices of traveling to Copenhagen - including a failed summit, which would be detrimental to the Obama legacy, and frittering away valuable time that could be better spent here in the US pushing forth his health care initiative.

Last week, Danish climate minister Connie Hedegaard prodded Obama to make a swift decision on his Climate Change strategy.

"The White House must stop 'dithering' while the Earth's environment is in danger," she said . "It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity."

But Obama did not tip his hand on how he might decide.

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending myself into harm's way and jeopardizing my presidential legacy," he said.

"But, if it is necessary," Obama added, "I will travel to Copenhagen to defend our environment from the forces of evil."

Obama stood on a stage under a huge UN flag as he addressed the enthusiastic crowd of UN officials and Greenpeace activists.

"By being here, you join a long, unbroken line of brave heroes who sacrificed their lives for the Earth's environment," he said.

"Thank you for reminding us of the kind of activists and scare-mongerers we can and must always be," Obama said, drawing boisterous applause from the wild-eyed, eco-conscious crowd.

Krauthammer: Obama's foreign policy not even worthy of being called a 'Doctrine'

The Spiegel interviewed Charles Krauthammer and conversed with him about Barack Obama and the Obama presidency. To read the full interview, click here.

Here's a small sampling:

SPIEGEL: You famously coined the term "Reagan Doctrine" to describe Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. What is the "Obama Doctrine?"

Krauthammer: I would say his vision of the world appears to me to be so naïve that I am not even sure he's able to develop a doctrine... I wouldn't elevate that kind of thinking to a doctrine because I have too much respect for the word doctrine....

SPIEGEL: Is it too early to foresee what Obama will be remembered for?

Krauthammer: It is quite early. It could be his election.