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.

Obama withdrawing US troops from Iraq, reaching out to Syria - Chaos ensuing

Obama withdrawing US troops from Iraq - chaos ensuing

From the AP:

A pair of suicide car bombings Sunday devastated the heart of Iraq's capital, killing at least 147 people in the country's deadliest attack in more than two years...

President Barack Obama... earlier this week reaffirmed the U.S.'s commitment to withdrawing its troops from the country....

[But] on the streets of Baghdad, many Iraqis were... wary...

"Everyday, we hear statements from different government officials that our forces are ready to control the situation on the ground when the U.S. forces withdraw," Zahid Hussain Najim said. "But day after day it has been found that these officials are either liars or have no idea about what's going on outside their offices."

Obama reaching out to Syria....

From Enerpub - August 31, 2009:

In February, the Obama Administration waived Syria Accountability Act provisions to approve the export of aircraft parts and repair services to Syria for civil aviation... Additionally, the return of a U.S. Ambassador to Damascus was announced on June 24th.

In July, according to Agence France Presse, Middle East "peace process" envoy George Mitchell told Assad he would work to speed up the process of obtaining exemptions to anti-Syrian sanctions. At the end of July, the United States announced a decision to ease sanctions on spare aircraft parts, information-technology products and telecommunications equipment.

A second delegation from Central Command arrived in August accompanied by an aide to Sen. Mitchell. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the talks were focused on Syria's "ongoing efforts to help stabilize the situation in Iraq."...

Syria's deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, expressed pleasure at the changed American posture in a Wall Street Journal interview. "We received assurances that the relations between the two countries should resume on the basis of mutual interests and most importantly on the basis of mutual respect. We really welcome such a new approach...”

Chaos ensuing.....

From the AFP - October 24, 2009:

Lieutenant General Ali Ghaidan Majeed, commander of Iraqi ground forces said "what really bothers" Iraq's military brass was security along the country's borders with Iran and Syria, which he said were helping train and equip insurgents infiltrating Iraq.

"Interference from the outside, from neighboring countries, is what is creating terrorism (in Iraq) -- terrorism came to us from the outside, it was imported," he said.

"It is pretty clear to us, and we have lots of evidence coming from those we are arresting -- the trainees are coming from camps in Syria and Iran.

"The people that we arrested, that is what they told us, that is where they were trained. The caches of weapons we find in the south, they are coming from Iran."

White House "Keeping it classy by trashing Deeds anonymously"

As Rush Limbaugh noted on his radio program on Friday, White House officials have been releasing anonymous statements to the media blaming the faltering gubernatorial campaign of Virginia Democrat Creigh Deeds on his refusal to embrace Barack Obama - in an effort to distance the president from the Democratic candidate's failing campaign and absolve Obama and his declining popularity for effectuating Mr. Deeds' downfall.

Additionally, Rush pointed out that Obama is issuing these statements in the midst of the gubernatorial campaign and is showing total disregard for Mr. Deeds and his candidacy.

"Why?" you ask.

Because for Barack Obama, the bottom line is always about: Me, Myself and I.

From US News & World Report:

Just days before President Barack Obama is scheduled to campaign for Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds, the White House is sending signals that Deeds' campaign is over, or as tweeted by CNN's Peter Hamby this morning, "keeping it classy by trashing Deeds anonymously."

At issue is a Washington Post story headlined "Deeds ignored advice, White House says."

Publicly airing complaints that Deeds is a weak candidate, one who didn't embrace key Obama constituencies... and indeed, has not fully embraced Barack Obama himself, all lays the groundwork that if Deeds loses, despite the best efforts of the Obama team, he has no one to blame but himself....

The Post story codifies the Democratic conventional wisdom that the Virginia gubernatorial race is all but over. President Obama will still campaign for Deeds in Newport News. He'll say all the right things and publicly play the role of the good soldier, even while his political team plays the same old politics as usual which he promised to change.

From CNN's Political Ticker:

A well-known Democratic strategist in Virginia is blasting the White House for placing anonymous quotes in the Washington Post in a pre-emptive effort to blame Creigh Deeds for what might be a loss in the state's upcoming gubernatorial election.

David "Mudcat" Saunders, who gained political fame helping Democrat Mark Warner reach out to rural voters during Warner's successful 2001 gubernatorial bid, told CNN Friday that trying to blame Deeds is "bulls**t" when Democrats around the country are "just tired of politics."...

In a story published Friday, a senior administration official told the Post that the Deeds campaign ignored their advice to embrace the president, which the official claimed would have boosted the Democratic candidate's lackluster support among the African-Americans and young voters who supported Obama in 2008.

Saunders rejected that argument. Embracing Obama..., he argued..., with the contentious economic debates going on in Washington..., would have been a "devastating" political move for Deeds, who is trailing Republican Bob McDonnell in the polls.

"They're making the assumption Virginia is a blue state, and it's not," Saunders said of the administration. "It's not a red state either. The very best that can be said about Virginia is that it's light purple. For them to say if he had listened to us they would win, that's chickens**t..."

"It's a shame when our center of government, the White House, won't talk on the record. I discount all of it," Saunders said of the Post article. "It's a lack of courage. And it goes against transparency that Obama told us last year was going to come out of the White House. Anybody who makes anonymous quotes out of the White House should be fired."...

Republicans, not surprisingly, are enjoying the back-and-forth. Republican National Committee spokeswoman Katie Wright said the White House is trying to "save face" before Election Day.

"Looks like Creigh Deeds has made the White House enemies list," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Katie Wright. "Deeds isn't the only one responsible for the downfall of his own campaign. While Deeds has promised higher taxes on Virginia families and small businesses, President Obama has had an equal hand in dragging his party down in the Commonwealth."

The hell with Creigh Deeds; the hell with the Democratic Party; the hell with America!

Long live Me, Myself and I. Praise be unto the Messiah!

VIDEO: "Rush Limbaugh - Washington Post - Obama slams candidate(s) before they lose":

The monologue on Obama and Creigh Deeds starts at about 2:29 into the video:

Jay Leno Mocks Obama for Attacking Fox News

And, last week, the Carbolic Smoke website reported as follows:

President Obama deployed 40,000 troops to Fox News’ Rockefeller Center headquarters last night in a stunning surprise attack that quickly wrested control of the conservative cable television news channel from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and placed it in the hands of the Obama White House.

It is believed to be the first war ever declared by a U.S. president on a cable news organization.

President Obama appeared on television shortly after midnight, with his Nobel Peace Prize slung around his neck, to solemnly announce the start of the war: “My fellow Americans, on my orders, at this moment, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to liberate the airwaves from Fox News....

[snip]

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn revealed that the fighting would have been over “much sooner” execpt that the troops had to be careful to do no harm to NBC and MSNBC, which also have their headquarters at Rockefeller Center.

Read full article

New Gallup poll shows increasing concern over Obamacare

According to a new USA Today/Gallup poll released on Thursday, Americans are now more likely to say that their healthcare costs will increase if a healthcare bill passes...

49% of respondents said they believe their healthcare costs will increase with the passage of a health care reform bill, up from 42% who felt that way last month. 27% said their healthcare costs would remain the same, compared to 32% who felt that way in September. The number of people who felt their healthcare costs would diminish as a result of a new health care bill remained at the 22% it was last month.

"In addition to costs," the Gallup poll showed that "a greater percentage of Americans - now compared with last month - also expect their healthcare situation to get worse in terms of the quality of care they receive (from 33% in September to 39%), their healthcare coverage (from 33% to 37%), and the insurance company requirements they have to meet to get certain treatments covered (up from 38% to 46%)."

"The poll finds no more than one-quarter of Americans believing their healthcare situation will improve in any of the [aforementioned] four areas. And in each, substantially more expect the situation to get worse than expect it to get better if a healthcare bill passes."

Hmmm......

Obama evinces love of capitalism by slashing executive pay

From the AP:

The Obama administration will order companies that received huge government bailouts last year to slash the base salaries of their top executives by an average of 90 percent and cut their total compensation in half, a person familiar with the decision said Wednesday...

In the AIG trading division, the arm of the company whose risky trades caused its downfall, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, the person familiar with the plan said...

The pay restrictions for all seven companies will require any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special benefits... to get permission for those perks from the government...

Okay, I know what some of you are thinking right now:

"This is nothing but pure, unadulterated totalitarianism at its worst!"

However, before you fall prey to the typical Conservative, knee-jerk reaction, please take a moment to ponder the following thought:

The president - on a number of occasions - has pledged that Americans making less than $250,000 will not see their taxes increase. According to Chairman Obama's latest directive, top executives at AIG will receive no more than $200,000 in total compensation, which means their tax rates will never go up as long as Obama is president. Hence, contrary to what the knee-jerk Republicans will have you believe, Obama is exhibiting a profound sense of empathy and compassion toward the aforementioned executives.

Truth be told, Obama is the ultimate capitalist, which is why he'll continue to monitor the salaries of all Americans - in order to ensure that they'll never again have to pay an extra dime in taxes to the IRS...

Gallup: Obama Suffers Worst 3rd Quarter Drop in Approval Since 1953

From Real Clear Politics:

Barack Obama has suffered the worst third quarter decline in his public approval rating of any elected president in the post-World War II era.

Obama's average quarterly approval rating has slipped from 62 percent in the second quarter to 52.9 percent in the third quarter, according to Gallup polling. That 9 percentage point decline is twice the amount of any other post-war elected president. Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan saw their standing decline 4 points between the two quarters. No other elected president has declined more than 4 points since 1953. The third quarter began July 20 and ended October 19....

More sobering for Obama, Gallup reports that Obama's latest quarterly average ranks 144th, or in the 44th percentile, for all post-war presidents during any quarter.

Read the full article

And, from Rasmussen Reports:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. That’s just a point above the lowest level ever recorded for this President. It’s also the sixth straight day in negative double digits, matching the longest such streak.

[Just 31% of voters believe that Congress has a good understanding of the health care proposal.]...

House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room

From the Wall Street Journal:

Democratic staff for the House oversight committee informed their GOP counterparts today that the majority has changed the locks on the committee's hearing room. While Republicans previously enjoyed their own key to the room, they will now have to request access from Democrats. This followed a bitter partisan argument in which Republicans refused to take down a video from their website that contradicted Dem explanations about a closed-door meeting on the Countrywide VIP loan scandal [see video below].

As we reported last week, the committee was scheduled to meet on Thursday to mark up several minor pieces of legislation. Days before the meeting, California Republican Darrell Issa notified committee Chairman Edolphus Towns that Mr. Issa would call for a vote to subpoena Countrywide documents from Bank of America, which bought the failed subprime lender last year. Recall that, under the "Friends of Angelo" program, named for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad received sweetheart deals on home mortgages. Mr. Issa wants to uncover the full story on Countrywide's effort to influence Washington policy makers.

Mr. Towns, a New York Democrat who also received mortgages from the unit that processed the VIP loans but claims he received no favors, has opposed such a subpoena. But can he count on his Democratic colleagues to vote it down? Perhaps Mr. Towns would rather not find out. Mr. Issa showed up for the scheduled 2 p.m. markup on Thursday hoping that a few Democrats would vote his way and allow the investigation to proceed. Then a strange thing happened: As Mr. Issa and the GOP members of the committee sat waiting for the meeting to begin, Democrats huddled in a back room without explanation. Thirty-five minutes later, the committee announced that the meeting had been postponed indefinitely.

A committee press release later claimed the postponement was "due to conflicts" with a markup occurring at the same time in the financial services committee. But Mr. Issa's staff videotaped several financial services members leaving the back-room gathering with Mr. Towns at the conclusion of the meeting. If members were there to confab with Chairman Towns, obviously they weren't at any finance committee markup -- suggesting the real "conflict" was between Democrats over whether to keep stonewalling the Countrywide matter. As for the Democrats' decision to change the locks today, Mr. Issa's spokesman Kurt Bardella says, "I guess we're getting some insight into what lengths they'll go to avoid addressing the Countrywide VIP issue...."

VIDEO - "Hit the Road Jack":
Oversight Democrats Run Away From Countrywide Bribe Program Vote:

McChrystal: Biden plan would transform Afghanistan into “Chaos-istan"

From the New York Times:

The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, used a speech here on Thursday to reject calls for the war effort to be scaled down from defeating the Taliban insurgency to a narrower focus on hunting down Al Qaeda, an option suggested by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as part of the current White House strategy review...

When a questioner asked [McChrystal] whether he would support scaling back the American military presence over the next 18 months by relinquishing the battle with the Taliban and focusing on... hunting Qaeda extremists and their leaders with missiles from remotely piloted aircraft, he replied: “The short answer is: no.”

“You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish to be,” he said. “A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”...

Advocating a “counterterrorist focus” in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, instead of a “counterinsurgency focus” against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, he said, was a formula for what he called “Chaos-istan.” Proponents of that approach, he said, would accept an Afghanistan in which there was “a level of chaos, and just manage it from outside.”...

General McChrystal was named the new American and allied commander in Afghanistan this summer in succession to Gen. David D. McKiernan..., when Mr. Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates decided they needed a fresh approach.

But direct contact between Mr. Obama and the Afghanistan commander has been rare. Aides in London said that Wednesday’s teleconference [a White House strategy session on Wednesday led by Mr. Obama, which included Mr. Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, other cabinet secretaries, top generals, and General McChrystal, participating by video-link from London] was only the second time since General McChrystal assumed his command in June that the two men had talked by videolink, a form of contact with field commanders that President George W. Bush, at the height of the Iraq war, used as often as once a week. Although he was out of Afghanistan on Wednesday, the aides said, General McChrystal was not invited to attend the White House strategy session in person...

Venezuela AFFIRMS / DENIES Iran Is Helping It Look for Uranium

From the New York Times - September 25, 2009:

A senior aide to Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, said Friday that Iran was assisting Venezuela in the detection and testing of uranium deposits found in remote areas of Venezuela. The disclosure points to the importance Mr. Chávez has placed on the development of a nuclear energy program.

“Iran is helping us with geophysical aerial probes and geochemical analysis,” Rodolfo Sanz, Venezuela’s minister of basic industries and mining, told reporters... "We could have important reserves of uranium..."

Mr. Chávez has denied that Venezuela wants to develop nuclear weapons... Still, Mr. Chávez has moved ahead in seeking the help of other countries. This month, he said he had reached an agreement with Russia, the top weapons supplier to Venezuela, for assistance in creating a nuclear energy program. Mr. Chávez also referred this month to a plan to create what he called a “nuclear village” in Venezuela with technological assistance from Iran...

From the New York Times - September 26, 2009:

Venezuela’s minister of science and technology denied Saturday that Iran was helping his country seek uranium, saying Venezuela was working only with Russia to detect deposits of the radioactive metal.

The official, Jesse Chacón, said Venezuela, which has vast deposits of various minerals and precious stones including gold, diamonds and nickel, was also seeking deposits of other natural resources and was taking aerial photos to determine what it should exploit...

The country’s minister of mining, Rodolfo Sanz, said Friday that Iran was helping Venezuela detect uranium deposits and that initial evaluations suggested reserves were significant...

Mr. Sanz declined to respond to reporters when questioned Saturday about the conflicting statements.

Related Post: Putin to help Venezuela develop "peaceful" nuclear technology

A Deal with Moscow? Don't Bet on It

From FP:

U.S. officials were practically giddy when they heard Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Wednesday indicate possible Russian support for new sanctions against Iran... Obama's chief Russia advisor, Michael McFaul, was "delighted," according to the New York Times. "I couldn't have said it any better myself," he said.

You could almost hear the champagne corks popping in the American delegation's suites.

But will Medvedev's words actually translate into Russian actions when it comes time to draft a tough resolution and vote?... Obama officials might want to recall that Russia has voted for U.N. resolutions against Iran in the past, but those texts were significantly watered down at Moscow's insistence.

Russia has also defied the spirit of those resolutions by continuing a business-as-usual approach to Tehran, including continued sales of arms and nuclear reactors. And Russian support for a sanctions resolution is far from a fait accompli. Just last week, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voiced their opposition to new sanctions...

Ultimately, Russia is the one responsible for facilitating and setting up Iran's nuclear program. Does anyone think for one moment that Russia is merely interested in helping the Iranians set up a nuclear energy program? Does anyone think for one moment that Putin's plans to deliver the S-300 anti-aircraft weapons system to Iran is based on his good samaritanism and his desire to protect Iran's peaceful nuclear energy quest? Or that Russia has been arming Iran and Venezuela to the teeth for the hell of it?

This is all about offsetting American power. It's about Putin's cold war mentality and his desire to weaken American interests and strengthen Russia's position on the World stage.

Anyone who thinks Russia's been expanding all that energy just to establish civilian nuclear plants in Iran is naive.... at best.

Documents reveal: ACORN misusing charitable contributions

From the Washington Post

Documents released by a Senate Republican on Thursday show that leaders of the ACORN community organizing network transferred several million dollars in charitable and government money meant for the poor to arms of the group that have political and sometimes profit-making missions.

ACORN's tax-exempt groups and allied organizations... used more than half their charitable and public money in 2006 to pay other ACORN affiliates, according to an analysis by the tax staff of Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

On Thursday, Grassley called the transactions a "big shell game" and said ACORN donors may be surprised by how the liberal group known for helping the poor obtain housing and health care was spending their money. He urged the Internal Revenue Service to take a closer look.

According to the Grassley report, charities "are being used to raise monies which are then funneled to other charities or to other organizations for purposes other than what the donor may have intended. . . . Dollars raised for charitable [purposes] appear to be used for impermissible lobbing and political activity."...

Also on Thursday, Grassley requested that ACORN... be taken off a list of approved charities for federal employees to donate to in an annual giving campaign.

The senator's staff... finished much of their analysis in fall 2008, and it is based largely on 2006 financial transactions. The most recent data available cover transactions in 2007.

Project Vote, one of the most recognized organizations in the ACORN family, took in $8.6 million in 2006 but paid more than 60 percent of that -- $5.4 million -- to two groups then controlled by [former ACORN director Wade] Rathke. About $4.6 million went to ACORN for "contractual and campaign services" and $779,000 went to Citizens Consulting Inc., which charged ACORN affiliates on a percentage basis for bookkeeping services...

Incidentally, Barack Obama headed the Chicago branch of Project Vote in 1992. Additionally, the Obama campaign dolled out $832,598.29 to Citizens Services Inc. - in 2008 - for get-out-the-vote projects. Citizens Services Inc. and Citizens Consulting Inc. [which are perhaps one and the same] are both ACORN subsidiaries, and they both share the same New Orleans address as ACORN.

FEC disclosure reports initially filed by the obama campaign indicated that the payments to CSI went for "staging sound and lighting."

When it was later discovered that CSI doesn't perform stage, lighting or sound services, the Obama campaign apologized for the mislabeling error and announced it was amending its FEC filings to indicate it had hired CSI for "get out the vote" projects; which raised suspicions as to what the Obama campaign was trying to hide.

Blair Latoff, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee said at the time: "Barack Obama's failure to accurately report his campaign's financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign's interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud. For a candidate who claims to be practicing 'new' politics, his FEC reports look an awful lot like the 'old-style' Chicago politics of yesterday."

Lavrov: G8 will not meddle in Iran's internal affairs

Echoing a statement issued by Barack Obama shortly after the Iranian presidential election, in which he asserted, "it is not productive... to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections", Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Thursday said - with regards to curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions - the G8 will refrain from meddling in Iran's "internal affairs".

From Itar-Tass:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his G-8 counterparts on Thursday to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and the situation in Afghanistan.

“On Iran’s problem, Russia confirmed its commitment to solving the issue by political and diplomatic means. The minister called for continuing efforts to develop a constructive dialog with Iran...,” the Foreign Ministry reported.

“At the same time, the parties stressed the need to respect Iran’s sovereignty and not interfere in its internal affairs,” the ministry added.

Lavrov's remarks were consistent with statements he issued earlier this month.

From the Wall Street Journal - September 11, 2009:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that Moscow wouldn't back any new rounds of tough sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, and he dismissed a U.S. timetable for securing progress from Iran on ending its nuclear-fuel program...

Just a day after U.S. officials warned that Iran may already have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb if processed further, Mr. Lavrov said negotiations should begin without any imposed timetable... "I do not think those sanctions will be approved by the United Nations Security Council," Mr. Lavrov said.

Iran needs "an equal place in this regional dialog," he said. "Iran is a partner that has never harmed Russia in any way."...

Mr. Lavrov [also said] that an expected U.S. move to drop plans to station a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe wouldn't be seen as a concession to Russia; such a move would merely correct a previous U.S. mistake, he said.

China on Thursday also announced it will not support increased sanctions on Iran as a way to curb its nuclear program.

“We always believe that sanctions and pressure are not the way out,” said Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, during a news conference.

Nevertheless, even as Obama's efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations appear to be heading south, he has managed to make ammends with Russia, Cuba, Venezuela and other UN member states. And, for that alone, he is certain to go down in history as one of the greatest American diplomats of all time....

Analysis: Pakistan unlikely to cooperate with US

From the AP:

Pakistan's doubts about U.S. commitment to the Afghan war make it less likely to cooperate in targeting Taliban commanders said to be directing the insurgency across the border...

American officials and many analysts allege that Pakistan's powerful spy agency is either protecting, tolerating or actively supporting those groups because they do not pose a direct threat to the Pakistani state and may be useful allies in ensuring that a pro-Pakistan, anti-India regime takes power in Afghanistan when the Americans leave...

A senior Pakistani intelligence official, however, insisted the spy agencies of Pakistan were sharing intelligence with the CIA about militants operating both here and in Afghanistan, including the Haqqani network.

"The CIA knows about our role, but we don't want to highlight it through the media," said the officer, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with the requirements of his job...

With talk of NATO pulling out of Afghanistan, an increasingly potent Taliban threat and rising questions in the U.S. [primarily within the Obama administration] about whether defeating the insurgency is possible, there is even less incentive for the Pakistani authorities to share intelligence on Haqqani and Omar, said Shaun Gregory, a professor at Bradford University's Pakistan Security Research Unit...

Sarkozy chides Obama over his naive and counterproductive Nuclear agenda

From the Telegraph UK:

World leaders have backed a... resolution calling for a world without nuclear weapons at a United Nations Security Council hosted by Barack Obama [on Thursday].

The President hailed the agreement as a landmark in halting the spread of nuclear weapons..., but forceful statements from other leaders on the need to act against Iran following the vote threatened to upstage the special meeting.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, came close to mocking his American counterpart for the good intentions, which Mr Obama had heralded as an "historic" step towards nuclear abolition, even though it set no specific targets or fresh mandates.

"We live in a real world not a virtual world," Sarkozy told the 15-member council.

"And the real world expects us to take decisions.

"President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

"Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

"I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map."...

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama's resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

"If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons," he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president's disarmament crusade "naïve"...

Though [the new resolution] merely consolidated many elements previously endorsed in the Security Council..., bringing them together in a single document... should add momentum to efforts to achieve these goals.

Obama to hold detainees indefinitely

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials...

"It's time to show the world that.we are not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they' are charged with."
Barack Obama speaking at a presidential campaign rally - September 03, 2007

"What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world..."
Barack Obama in an interview with ABC News - June 16, 2008

"There should be no conflict between keeping America safe and secure and respecting our Constitution... Habeas corpus ... is the foundation of Anglo-American law, which says very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ and say, ‘Maybe, you’ve got the wrong person.’ The reason we have that safeguard is we don’t always have the right person. We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Muhammad the terrorist. It might be Muhammad the cab driver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb-thrower. But it might be Barack, the guy running for president.’’
Barack Obama speaking at a presidential campaign rally - September 8, 2008

Zelaya comes to Honduras and violence ensues, thanks to Obama and the UN

From La Gringa's Blogicito:

After several weeks of relative peace and calm in Honduras － and no curfews, despite what the international media consistently misreports － former president Mel Zelaya returned to Honduras Monday and instigated violence again.

Virtually every private car in the area of the Brazilian Embassy where Zelaya is hiding was damaged by breaking out some or all of the windows and ruining the tires. Ironically, Mel Zelaya's own mother's car was parked on the street and was likewise vandalized.

Private homes in the area were broken into and robbed. Citizens were assaulted. Death threats were sprayed unto neighbors' walls...

At least one woman's house was completely ransacked, robbed, and her two employees were terrorized. The Zelayistas smoked marijuana as they destroyed and smashed everything in her house up to and including the ceilings, doors, and windows...

Other neighbors were terrorized, assaulted, threatened with rape, and forced to prepare food by the rioters while they were being robbed. Numerous citizens called the police about home invasions.

This video [click here - (the video is in Spanish)] shows the above mentioned woman's angry reaction to the violation. She holds Mel Zelaya, the Brazilian Embassy, and Brazilian President Lula directly responsible. She also demands that Human Rights organizations and Washington answer whether she has any human rights....

Banks, businesses, and government offices were similarly vandalized and robbed. Employees of one fast food restaurant were threatened by Zelayistas with burning the building down with them inside.

Stores were destroyed and robbed of everything, up to and including refrigerators, washers, dryers, and computers. A bank branch was robbed of L. 500,000...

Click here to read the rest of the post.

Hmmm, now that Obama and the UN are working multilaterally to create a new world order, it seems like things are starting to look up again! And, undoubtedly, Mel Zelaya and Hugo Chavez couldn't be any happier!

Praise the Messiah!

Michelle Paterson criticizes President Obama for meddling in gubernatorial election

New York's first lady, Michelle Paterson said it was wrong for President Obama to meddle in a local election and interfere with her husband's reelection campaign:

"I have never heard of a president asking a sitting governor not to run for reelection," Michelle Paterson told NBC New York in a recent interview. "I thought it was very unusual and very unfair."

Shortly after the Iranian Presidential election, President Obama issued a statement saying he wouldn't meddle in the Iranian elections.

"It is not productive...," he said, "to be seen as meddling - the U.S. president meddling - in Iranian elections."

Bill Clinton: Ahmadinejad is retaliating for all "the 'VICIOUS', or excuse me, 'vitriolic' criticism he received"

Former President Bill Clinton - in an interview on NBC's Today Show Tuesday - had this to say about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"If you just look at what Hillary said in the last few days, as well as the consistent position of, not just the president, but the whole national security apparatus, I think we've got to trust [him/her/them?] right now. because for reasons that no one can clearly understand, Ahmadinejad is lashing out at the world, apparently in retaliation to all the 'VICIOUS', or excuse me, the 'vitriolic' criticism he received because of the way he acted in the election. So, it could mean that he's just playing his political cards at home. We just have to let them sort it out right now...."

The aforementioned statement can be heard 3 minutes and 8 seconds into the interview:



Was Clinton's "Vicious" gaffe a Freudian slip?

Truth be told, the word "vitriolic" was also inappropriate.

Secondly, did Clinton say "we've got to trust HIM [Ahmadinejad] right now"? Or did he say "we've got to trust HER/or THEM [President Obama and Hillary] right now? It's hard to tell, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the latter - despite his earlier ["vicious"] gaffe.

In any case, Mr. Clinton - being the Obama & Hillary lackey that he is - was clearly espousing the administration's pacifist policy on Iran.

Administration Silencing 'Medicare Advantage' Critics — So AARP Can Collect More “Kickbacks”?

From the Washington Post:

The federal government has ordered health insurers to stop telling Medicare beneficiaries that proposed health reform legislation could hurt seniors and jeopardize their benefits.

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees "misleading and confusing" messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday...

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt "millions of seniors and disabled individuals" who "could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable."...

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said beneficiaries "deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums."...

[Sen. Mitch] McConnell said it was a "common sense conclusion" that the proposed cuts in payments to Medicare health plans would lead those plans to reduce benefits.

The AP apparently agrees with McConnel's assessment:

From the AP:

The president's speech to Congress [on September 10] contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance.

A look at some of Obama's claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story...:

OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."

THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.

Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.

Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't...

And, here's an eye-opening revelation from the GOP.gov website:

Administration Silences Medicare Advantage Critics - So AARP Can Collect More "Kickbacks":

This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating Humana for providing "misleading" information regarding the Administration's proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage policies-and prohibited other Medicare Advantage plans from providing similar information on how Democrat health "reform" could take away their current coverage.

Yet the Administration's edict prohibiting plans from communicating with their beneficiaries failed to include AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage plan but has been a prime advocate of Democrats' government takeover of health care-quite possibly because AARP has been supporting a health care overhaul from which it stands to gain overall handsomely. Even as AARP advocates for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, an analysis of the organization's operations reveals that it stands to receive tens of millions of dollars at the expense of seniors' medical care-with Democrats' full approval:

The Congressional Budget Office has previously estimated that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans proposed in Democrats' government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) would cause millions of seniors to lose their current plan and enroll in government-run Medicare.

Because the government-run Medicare benefit is less generous than most private health plans, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found in June that more than nine in ten seniors not in nursing home settings utilize some form of Medicare supplemental insurance. While many of these individuals currently rely on Medicare Advantage plans for the extra benefits they provide to seniors, many would be forced to purchase supplemental Medigap policies should their existing Medicare Advantage plans be taken away from them due to Democrats' government takeover of health care.

A review of its financial statements finds that in 2008, AARP received more than half a billion dollars in revenue from selling products like Medigap supplemental insurance policies-$652.7 million in direct "royalties and fees," and an increase of more than 31 percent from the $497.6 million in similar revenue AARP generated in 2007.

Royalty revenues now comprise more than half-60.3 percent-of all AARP revenues; a Bloomberg news analysis published in December found that in 1999, royalties comprised only 11 percent of the organization's total revenues.

The Bloomberg article - which highlighted what one observer called AARP's "dirty little secret" - profiled seniors who felt betrayed after paying hundreds of dollars above market price for AARP-branded coverage. One noted that "AARP has great buying power, and people should be able to get the best deal....This is unconscionable, what AARP has allowed to happen." Another disillusioned senior wrote to the organization's leadership asking whether AARP had a "‘special relationship' with [insurance carriers] by which it receives commissions, incentives, rebates, or dare I say ‘kickbacks?'"-and when he arrived at AARP headquarters for a tour, was promptly escorted out of the marble-covered atrium.

While H.R. 3200 would place strict price controls on Medicare Advantage plans-requiring them to pay out 85 percent of premium revenues in medical claims-Medigap policies face a far less strict 65 percent requirement. In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund "kickbacks" to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans.

The higher prices charged by AARP plans, and the organization's increasing dependence upon revenue from "royalties," provide tangible evidence why AARP would support cuts to Medicare Advantage that would likely increase their "kickbacks" from Medigap plans. However, it does not answer several key questions:

Given the myriad new layers of insurance regulation included in Democrats' government takeover of health care, why does the legislation not include a single provision attempting to impose any new restrictions on Medigap policies?

Did Democrats "forget" to protect seniors-or were they informed that AARP could not support legislation that would limit its lucrative revenue source?

Similarly, did CMS "forget" to include AARP among the organizations whose First Amendment rights to inform seniors of harmful Medicare provisions were restricted-or did the Administration only wish to silence its critics, and not outside organizations using "kickbacks" to fund advertising in support of the Democrat agenda?...

Hmmm........

Baucus health plan would levy $4 billion-a-year in taxes on heart valves, power wheelchairs, insulin pumps etc.

From the AP:

Amid Republican ridicule, a Democratic chairman backed down Tuesday and exempted consumer items of $100 or less — from condoms to contact lenses — from a proposed tax on medical device manufacturers. It would help pay for health care coverage for the uninsured in comprehensive legislation.

But Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., left intact a $4 billion-a-year levy on the medical devices industry, which makes everything from heart valves to imaging machines to tongue depressors.

Baucus' last-minute switch means that contact lens solution... and home pregnancy tests — among many other items — will not be taxed... But more expensive consumer medical goods, from power wheelchairs to insulin pumps and hearing aids, would still get hit...

The medical devices industry says that eventually, the taxes will get passed on to consumers. Republicans say that amounts to a violation of President Barack Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class...

The companies say they can't just take a $4 billion hit and suck it in...

A UBS Investment Research study... estimated the tax equals about one-fifth of industry profits.