The End is Near

Today in Germany the president did one of his patented press conferences, using over 30 minutes to interact with 4 reporters.  The last question was about the Supreme Court's possible ruling on the federal exchanges in Obamacare.  The answer was the usual incomprehensible filibuster, but the reporter tried again one more time, at which point this is how it ended..



Bizarre.  

So what about the headline of this post?   Well, this answer doesn't signify the end being near, but the fact the person answering it has the power he does--and many would say his predecessor--is perhaps cause for concern.   Or, the end is near could refer to Obamacare itself, ie, something is going to end with this ruling, either the law or the GOP pushback.  Or maybe it's the end of this silly blog.  Hard to say which will come first. 

Look over there!

All this fuss about fixing immigration.  Why the rush?  Was something about to expire?  Were masses of illegal immigrants about to be shipped back over the border in a week, in Nazi cattle cars?  No, other than politics there was no pressing need to do anything about a problem that the president himself hasn't put that much effort into for six years and one he only recently said wasn't even possible to fix from the White House.

But it's a big story, and other things aren't.  Other stuff they'd rather not talk about.

Like having their butts whipped, for one.  And others.  But give these guys credit, they know how to make things an issue and whip up the stuff they want to discuss, not the bad stuff. The best defense is a good offense, and it's a good political strategy as long as there's a willing press to help.

Oddly enough, the notion of going on offense in a defensive setting is written all over the recent email release regarding Fast and Furious the DOJ was just forced to FOIA out to Judicial Watch.  Their communications slap dashers made it clear they were bothered by former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson for being a crack reporter and were focused on getting their boss in front of more 'reasonable' reporters to help him explain to the American grubers what he didn't know and when he didn't know it.

But is anyone in the media reporting about this release or what it might mean to press freedoms or what it might say about their role with this administration?  Only the right leaning bloggers, pretty much.

How about Iran?   The president is on record numerous times saying that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a "game-changer" and that he will not allow them to acquire a nukular weapon on his watch.   But we are only 2 days away from the extended deadline (the first one passed almost unnoticed) in the almost invisible "P5+1" talks designed to get the Ayatollahs to stop making said nuke.

Should this deadline pass (and there has been almost no reportage about it) our country will be right back to square one with Iran, except the sanctions will be lower because the president relaxed them to induce a deal.  So they would have to be revamped.  Or, we would have to start bombing because after all, the administration has never formally taken the military option off the table. Yes, that was a serious comment.

Surely John Kerry will finagle another extension by maybe lowering more sanctions, but won't that signal extreme weakness on our part?  Will anyone on the Sunday Shows mention the fallout from another feckless red line issued by America?

And if the Ferguson, MO Grand Jury decision is released on Sunday as some predict, that's it.  Hell, they could announce an agreement to fund Iran's nuke program and provide Hizballah with Fast and Furious guns and nobody would notice. 

Speaking of South Asia, there are reports the DoD paid a phony ransom to some Afghan terror con man thinking they were going to get Private-Sgt Bowe Bergdahl in return.  They deny it of course, because we don't pay ransoms otherwise we would have paid to not have our folks lose their heads, but they only deny it insofar as calling it a ransom.  Hey look over there, it's 10 feet of snow in Buffalo!  

How about Obamacare?  The HHS just came out yesterday and admitted their enrollment numbers were pretty much bullcrap. Overestimated by almost a half a million.   In other words, more empty words.  Almost no mainstream media outlets are covering it.

And now mysteriously, on a Friday evening before the coming riots, some of Lois Lerner's emails have been found.
 
Let's face it, this administration knows how to play the GOP.  The media helps. Obama's unambiguous but nakedly political declarations made before the mid-terms that he couldn't legally and constitutionally do what he just did would sink any other president, but not this one.  And that makes the GOP even madder and more frustrated. That gives skilled politicians like Obama a huge advantage.

The recent mass shooter at Florida State is yet another example of this bias--since he was black and was known to recite scripture while referencing Black Panther figures the story is pretty much over now, at least from a marketable aspect to bash the Tea Party or "gun nuts" or paranoid wingers thinking the government is out to get them, or something else for Obama to yell "pass a bill" about.  Nothing to see, move along, over here, to this nice immigration story about the nice president who cares about everything more than anyone and the courageous struggling workers changing "yes we can" against those evil xenophobes who don't know their butts from a broomstick when it comes to this kind of trench warfare.  

MORE  11/22/14

Add this one to the other things going on list..

President Barack Obama has quietly approved guidelines in recent weeks to allow the Pentagon to target Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, broadening previous plans that had limited the military to counterterrorism missions against al-Qaida after this year, U.S. officials said late Friday.

Part of ending the war responsibly, no doubt. And of course, this was in the works for a year despite nobody being told about it.

Anyway, back to immigration. Where is the Executive Order? Obama was photographed signing something on AF1 yesterday, but what was it? According to the various sites showing presidential EOs there are no recent orders. The WH is calling these things 'actions', ie, Executive Actions, which NPR almost seems curious about while saying that actions hold far less legal weight than orders. And if he signed something on the plane that means there was no EO signing ceremony, odd for such an historic move (yes there are signing ceremonies for EO, which the NPR link shows).

Ebola Chaos

What's a public official to do?   They cannot have people exposed to Ebola, a virus with no vaccine and a proven high mortality rate, running around a city "self-monitoring", even if it might work.  The political fallout of a worse case is off the charts.

But how do they justify quarantines when the leader of the federal response is hugging an Ebola victim the same day she is released from the hospital? 

It should be obvious the virus isn't transmitted through the air at this point.  Even close contact might not spread it, as the relatives of Thomas Duncan can now attest.  At the same time, the doctor who assumed normal frivolities around New York City less than 2 weeks after returning from the hot zone (and somehow making it though the thermometer gauntlet at JFK) was thought to be meticulous in his protection routine, yet he came down with the virus anyway.  So there is still some uncertainty.  As a rule public officials have a hard time playing games of risk-reward with such uncertainties.  Ergo, Christie and Cuomo's bi-partisan quarantine order.

But there are political risks anyway.  Already the quarantine is beginning to blowback on Christie in the form of the nurse selected as patient one:

Hickox says she has asked repeatedly but hasn't been told how long she'll be held at the hospital. "To put me in prison," she said, "is just inhumane."

War on women!   Notice the CNN report has not one mention of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was just out the other day mocking the idea of 'self monitoring', calling it an oxymoron.   Yet patient one and CNN are laying blame on the fat guy. 

At the same time, grabbing citizens and placing them into mandatory quarantine, without access to lawyers or other advocates, is a long-held fear of the conservative right. It's something Obama was supposed to do, you know, the FEMA camps. Now a GOP governor is on the leading edge.  Alex Jones' head has probably exploded.  

And couldn't Christie have at least have called Governor Perry to get some advice on how they handled the mandatory quarantine of Thomas Duncan's relatives, who didn't seem to complain much (if there were any breathless CNN stories about Duncan's relatives being denied their civil rights and being treated inhumanely they seem to have disappeared now).   Ah, politics again. 

But a solution exists that doesn't involve government, one wrapped more in personal responsibility and civics. Nurse Hickox is associated with Doctors Without Borders, a group that has provided a large number of workers to the hot zones while at the same time taking a somewhat liberal approach regards returning volunteers.  This despite the fact the group has seen 16 workers infected with Ebola in the hot zones, with 9 of them dying as of October 14.  Another humanitarian group providing workers is Samaritan's Purse, who has their own approach to returning workers:

The relief group began requiring all returning staff to stay isolated for 21 days, away from family members. The organization houses workers within an hour’s drive of medical facilities, such as Emory University or the NIH, which are equipped to handle Ebola patients, in case someone gets sick. The workers, who are paid their normal salaries, are not allowed to take public transit or touch anyone, and they must take their temperature multiple times a day.

“That’s just a part of the deal, and they have accepted that,” said Isaacs, who acknowledges that the requirements make it potentially more difficult to recruit volunteers to work in West Africa. “We’ve never felt comfortable that just coming back and letting people go about life as normal and take their temp two times a day was sufficient.”

They admit their extra rigor might dissuade more volunteers, but listen to the comments of the quarantined nurse in New Jersey:

Hickox said she worries that her experience will discourage other aid workers from going to West Africa to help quell the Ebola outbreak. ..

[snip to a few sentences down]  Someone asked me earlier would I do this again if I knew what would happen, and my answer is categorically yes," she said. "I feel incredibly privileged to be able to do this work."

So yes and no.

The bottom line is that people are scared of the unknown.  In such times they expect prudence from public officials.  They see people dressed like astronauts still getting the virus and it's worrisome. They see Obama and all the other federal officials bending over backwards to dispel any notion of a problem, first saying it would never come to our shores, then saying it wouldn't spread, then it wouldn't become 'major'.  They remember Obama saying "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period".

Then they see people who might have been exposed but are not yet symptomatic breezing into the country past thermal scans that are useless unless someone has symptoms.  And they see an approach taken by groups like Samaritan's Purse and think "that sounds reasonable".   As time goes by and an outbreak doesn't occur, things will get better, whether by chance or by quarantine.  Then all the politicians can pat themselves on the back accordingly and we can all move on to the next crisis.

Aviation Update

The temperature screening at five airports has finally commenced, although it's doubtful the program will have a very soothing affect on the public at large, especially after today's Ebola hearings in Congress.



The question of why the administration has not restricted travel to the hot zones was asked of White House spokesman Josh Earnest today, and briefly provided a moment of levity..




But the question remains open.  The administration seems fine with taking a risk that some asymptomatic Ebola victims will arrive in America despite the screening efforts, expressing confidence the system will protect Americans if they later present at the local hospitals with symptoms.  This despite the FUBAR with index patient zero, Mr. Duncan, in Dallas.  That's not a very comforting assurance.  It almost has the impression of a cost-benefit analysis, ie, a few American deaths are worth trading to prevent a collapse of west African governments, which could lead to a bigger world problem.  Just hope you're not collateral damage.

But isn't there almost a de facto travel ban in place already?  Here's some information on current airline services into the hot zone countries...

For Monrovia, Liberia, it appears there are only two: Brussels Airlines, with flights to Brussels, and  Royal Air Maroc, with flights to Freetown and Casablanca.  It's a bit humorous to see that Delta suspended its much-heralded flights from JFK to Monrovia on August 31st due to "weak passenger demand".

For Freetown, Sierra Leone,  the same two still flying to Monrovia, Brussels and Royal Air Maroc to the same destinations as from Monrovia.

And for Conakry airport in Guinea, it appears Air France with service to Paris, Royal Air Maroc with service to Casablanca, and Brussels Airlines with service to Brussels is the extent of it.

So it's not like Obama could use his pen and phone and shut down Brussels Airlines, Royal Air Maroc and Air France operations to west Africa.  As of this minute there's no American flag carrier service to this area already and no non-stop flights on any airlines.  Maybe that's why they can come across so cavalierly in opposing a travel ban--it's basically in place already.  In today's hearings (and other media questioning) CDC chief Frieden stressed that a ban would make it harder to track people arriving here from the hot zone countries and cause a widespread world outbreak.  Thing is, the surrounding countries have already imposed bans, which they credit with keeping the spread under control so far.

That doesn't leave many ways for sick people in the hot zone countries to get out.  They can't drive out of their area and can only fly to 3 or 4 cities if they can get past screeners.  In other words, maybe US authorities feel they have the few conduits of passage well viewed, perhaps even with the assistance of FBI or DHS tracking.


Of course, if law enforcement or transportation agencies are actually monitoring people it didn't work too well for Mr. Duncan.  One could even question why he wasn't moved to one of the top-notch Ebola treatment facilities as have all the other American cases so far.  Were they rigidly trying to follow a stupid protocol that was later changed, or was someone trying to send a subtle message to foreigners that coming here via deception might not result in a good outcome?   The Pentagon was only yesterday warning about a mass migration across our borders should Ebola spread to our southern neighbors, which would be based on the notion that once here they would have to be treated.   But treated how, like Duncan or the Americans?  

But let's end this on a positive note.  We are coming closer to the end of the 21 day incubation period for Mr. Duncan's friends and relatives who at last check were spending some quality time in an undisclosed quarantine location.  As far as the media has been told none of them have come down with the virus.  Also, nobody on the plane with Duncan came down with it.  So it's entirely possible the public quasi-panic will begin to subside soon if none of the casual contacts with Duncan or his nurses show any symptoms.  Other nurses or doctors working close to the patients coming down with it would not spread the same panic. 

Taken another way, if in a few weeks Obama takes full credit for solving Ebola that will actually be a good thing for the nation because it will mean, 1) we know more about the virus and how to handle it, and 2) it didn't become a widespread outbreak, none of which would be blamed on Obama if things get worse.  Politically speaking, this good news would not likely affect the mid-term elections very much because people expect the government to act when bad things come up and everyone knows the initial reaction was poor. If things get worse nobody will care about the elections.

BANS..   10/16/14

To co-opt an Obama phrase, let me be clear.  This blog called for Visa/passport bans weeks ago.  Those are not travel bans.  As pointed out above, there are no US carriers running flights into the hot zones anyway.  Flights will still run if the overseas airlines want to run them.  That's why the State Department's incessant argument that banning travel would cause huge problems in fighting the disease there deserves a big "how"?  The only thing that would change would be the delay of people in the hot zones getting into the US.  Run a quarantine, like the relatives of the Dallas index patient.  How f-ing hard is that?  We've heard our military will be subject to quarantines.

Simply standing there at the podium and arrogantly refusing while admitting that as many as 100 Visa applications are coming in per day in the hot zones is beyond the pale.

Battle Lines on Ebola?

This CBS News headline struck me as odd:

White House pushes back against Ebola response critics

Hmm. Who are those critics, again? The story hints at the culprits in the 4th paragraph:

Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina even accused the administration of neglect Friday for not having an Ebola czar.

So the first critic mentioned was "Republican...". The story then mentions the administration's pushback, specifically the press conference given Friday at the White House. Yet nowhere did it mention the TOUGHEST QUESTION ASKED during that presser, which came from.... the New York Times.

So are we witnessing a mainstream media outlet trying to use the Ebola event to draw invisible battle lines between the White House and the GOP, perhaps using the fact the virus comes from Black Africa to suggest racist overtones before the mid-term elections? It wouldn't be surprising.

Meanwhile, more is coming out on the Dallas infection. Some Fed Ex workers in Monrovia claim Duncan knew he had the infection and was trying to reach America where health care is better to save his life. That certainly would be consistent with initial reaction by many here in the states.  By the way, that does not necessarily mean he was symptomatic and therefore contagious on the aircraft--just that he suspected he soon would be.

As to the administration's press conference, this was a talking point offered:

"Every Ebola outbreak over the past 40 years has been stopped," said Monaco. "We know how to do this, and we will do it again."

And we can all hope and pray they do. But we've never had a case in the United States, so this is uncharted territory.  By the way, the attempts to quell panic are understandable, but if they are misrepresenting the threat (such as what they've done with "core" al Qaeda) it does nothing but lessen confidence people have in government, something we all will need if things get worse. 

MORE  10/5/14

Legal Insurrection taking notice with a nice roundup.

Aviation Update

Slowly but surely the Ebola traveler has been named and his itinerary published: Monrovia-Brussels to a United flight leaving September 19th; connection at Washington Dulles on the 20th with a flight to DFW.

Meanwhile this guy.....

...has been telling everyone not to worry because Ebola can only be transmitted when a virus carrier displays symptoms.  There was 'zero risk of transmission' on the flights.  I am not questioning that. 

But I do question a few things.  The Dallas victim was able to board a flight after coming in direct close contact with a woman who had the disease and died.  He knew he was a possible carrier and might come down with the disease at any minute.  Matter of fact that's probably why he got on the flight to "visit relatives" in Dallas--an attempt to save himself.  We have better hospitals.  Was it only dumb luck he stayed symptom free all the way to Texas?

In other words, what happens when someone boards one of these long international flights, shows no signs of fever upon boarding, but comes down with a fever in-flight?  Can they or will they be isolated onboard?  Will countries or airports refuse landing rights if the flight crew tries to divert or declare a medical emergency to offload the sick passenger?  Could we have some kind of JV version of  "Pandora's Clock"?

Or let's say the person begins to come down with the early symptoms during the last leg of the flight but manages to hide it until deplaning, then gets off and walks through the airport, opening doors, touching walls and bathroom fixtures, sneezes, etc, on the way to customs?  Or gets through customs undetected and continues out into the world outside?  Seems unlikely the CDC could track down everybody he/she came in contact with. 

Now, everyone knows we are the beacon of freedom around the world and nobody wants to restrict the freedom to travel.  But we have a border.  Non-citizens traveling to the United States from the Ebola hot zone countries need visas to enter the US.  Should anything be done in this area?  Evidently there is a test to determine if someone has the virus before they are symptomatic (if the story is correct) so why not insist all passengers to the US get the test as a requirement for a travel visa, at least for awhile until the outbreak is quelled?  Some countries have already required entry visas to address this, but today the State Department was asked and the spokeslady, with a smirk, said they are not considering any such restrictions.  Let's hope they don't kill anyone with PC.

Utopia by the Numbers

Utopia as in Obamacare, at least that's what it seemed like from listening to the bubbly Jay Carney describe the sign-up numbers on the O-Care deadline yesterday.  He was go giddy he even messed up the numbers.  But the media seems to be buying it.   If not outright celebrating.

Carney's talking point was that the 6 million sign-ups were unexpected based on the website problems and therefore must reflect the popularity of the awesome program.

But hold on.   The baby bird media might buy such a thing but average humans should be skeptical.  Do a bunch of people signing up for a program right before the deadline actually mean it's popular, or does it simply mean there was a deadline?  After all, if surges of activity before government deadlines are now an indication of popularity then paying taxes to the IRS via the Post Office must be a hugely popular!

The GOP should be addressing this as a "no duh" moment.  Of course there was a surge--it's THE LAW.  Obama was recently out warning people they may GET FINED for not applying.  The hugely popular IRS is involved, who may TAKE MONEY FROM YOU if you don't 'get covered'.  So what do the numbers mean?   They could mean the program is popular, but they just as easily may mean there are a lot of people are law-abiding Americans who take deadlines seriously.  After all, wouldn't more have signed up earlier if it was so awesome?  As the WH said, there were many ways to sign up apart from the website. 

No, the only metric to gauge popularity right now is the polling data, which does not back up Carney's fantasy.  ABC reporter Jonathan Karl started down that road in the press briefing yesterday but he didn't go far enough.  The GOP should take it the rest of the way.  After all, the administration claims to be science-friendly--they should be made to show how such a contention is verifiable.   

YES,  BUT  4/1/14

As predicted by some the administration just came in with just a smidgen over 7 million sign-ups, which triggered one of the biggest end-zone dances ever seen on the 25 yard line.  The question "how many actually paid?" was not answered by Carney today--heck, he didn't even refer reporters to HHS/Sebelius for a non-answer, just saying "we'll provide it later".  Perhaps on the evening before Memorial Day weekend.

Speaking of sports, Obama welcomed the evil Boston Red Sox (evil because they beat the Cardinals, that's all) to the White House for a World Series congratulation ceremony and made yet another sports gaffe, this time botching the pronunciation of Mike Napoli's last name.  When added to the self-proclaimed "baseball lover" and White Sox fan's description of Comiskey Park as "Kamensky Field"--then not being able to name a single favorite White Sock--it surely appears the president is a pretend baseball fan.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with not being a baseball fan--he would share it with millions, but it appears he simply can't bring himself to admit it publicly.  Maybe it's out of fear of being called an outsider from Kenya, etc.  But ask yourself which is worse, a guy who stands up and says "I'm not the biggest baseball fan but I love basketball" or a guy who calls himself a baseball lover then calls his favorite team's ballpark "Komensky Field"?   And yes it's relevant, because it reflects character and an ability to flim-flam for a cause.    
  

Obama and Constitutions

According to our constitutional scholar president, the action taken by the Crimea section of Ukraine to secede into the Russian Republic was "unconstitutional":

Speaking from the White House on Thursday, President Obama called “unconstitutional” a planned referendum in the Crimea over whether people there want to remain part of Ukraine, and reiterated a series of steps Russian President Vladimir Putin could take to “de-escalate” the conflict in the region

One day earlier the same president unilaterally changed the Affordable Care Act with the stroke of his own pen (presumably he didn't call anyone). The same president appointed people to his administration when the Senate was still in session.  Just sayin--when you don't live by your words your words don't mean much.

Hey, He Lied...

...but Charles, he's getting away with it...

Translation: They were never really serious about Afghanistan. (Nor apparently about Iraq either. Gates recounts with some shock that Hillary Clinton admitted she opposed the Iraq surge for political reasons, and Obama conceded that much of the opposition had indeed been political.)

The Democratic mantra — Iraq War, bad; Afghan War, good — was simply a partisan device to ride anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War feeling without appearing squishy. Look, they could say: We’re just being tough and discriminating. Iraq is a dumb war, said Obama repeatedly. It’s a war of choice. Afghanistan is a war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror.

Having run on that, Obama had a need to at least make a show of trying to win the good war, the smart war. “If I had ever come to believe the military part of the strategy would not lead to success as I defined it,” writes Gates. “I could not have continued signing the deployment orders.” The commander in chief, Gates’s book makes clear, had no such scruples.

Yep, duh. And Secretary Gates comes off looking like he just fell off the turnip truck at 70 expressing shock that Obama would not feel any passion about Afghan.  Most of us in the blogosphere knew the liberals were playing politics with national security back in 2004 and would do or say anything when Dr. Dean started the "Bush lied" meme. Obama was just the culmination of the grand plan to grab back power.


And yes, Mr. Austin Bay, you write a very good expose about Benghazi, speculating in all the right areas...

From the get-go, many of us didn't buy this crock. For starters, it leveraged several shop-worn left-wing "blame America" tropes, including that Americans are anti-Muslim bigots. The hooey was also at odds with on-the-ground reports, which emerged immediately after the horror. Pro-U.S. Libyans had warned that a well-armed militant Islamist militia intended to launch attacks in Benghazi. Granular reports of an extended firefight between the militiamen and a U.S. security element proved to be very accurate.

History has substantiated the heroism of former U.S. Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty as fact. They resisted for over six hours before being killed by enemy mortar fire. Ah, yes, peaceful demonstrators impulsively employing heavy infantry weapons. According to the now-available congressional transcripts, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey (after speaking with AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham) informed President Barack Obama that the consulate had suffered a terror attack.

Panetta and Dempsey told the president within an hour after the first assault began. Yet Obama Administration officials continued to peddle the "video did it" canard for almost two weeks after the assault. Why peddle a blatant falsehood? Because "the video did it" narrative advanced a propaganda campaign supporting central Obama re-election political themes. Obama claimed his presidency would dramatically change Arab Muslim perceptions of America. Though he never equated killing Osama bin Laden with defeating al-Qaida, he implied al-Qaida was fading fast. The Benghazi disaster countered these touts. Obama had to leave the American public with the definite impression that the Benghazi assault was spontaneous. Why, that nasty video incited inexplicable anger!

All of which should be obvious to just about anyone with a political brain, including most MSM reporters. Which means they don't want to consider it because of the damage it could do.  Some are even reporting on how Fox is covering it wrong instead of actually digging for any stories.  Meanwhile the same reporters speculate wildly about Christie's Bridgegate. They couldn't telegraph their bias any better with a skywriter.  Oh, and yes, Fox News is biased to the right, but they owe their very existence to the mainstream bias.

Hey, how about Snoop-gate? NSA-gate? No, there will be no 'gates' for Obama except Professor Henry Gates, which was the first look into our social justice president's true mind after the election (Joe the Plumber was our first true glimpse beforehand and look what happened to him).  The constitutional scholar president who campaigned on Bush's trashing of the Constitution, in part due to NSA surveillance, actually made it worse in 2011 before anyone was looking:

What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

Tomorrow he will do what he always does--give a speech. That will satisfy most of the media with the exception of Greenwald and maybe Fox News.  A real media might connect some dots between Robert Gates' revelations, Dr. Krauthammer's assessment of fighting the 'good war' along the 'central front in the War on Terror' in Afghanistan, and the New York Times' recent apologia explaining how becoming president steeled Obama's spine with each PDB, and maybe question what the hell is actually going on.

For instance, they could question why we need more NSA snooping to protect us from terrorists while the administration downplays the terror threat, saying we might leave Afghanistan if there's no deal with Karzai.  They could question why we have no intention of sending troops back to Iraq or Syria to fight affiliates of AQ, which we're being told are somehow different than  "core AQ", while at the same time sending troops to Africa to look for Joseph Kony.   But they already know the answers. 

Finally, Obamacare. Not only did he outright lie to the public about keeping their plans and doctors, now it appears he is lying about how many have signed up for Medicaid:

Essentially, then, it is ridiculous to suggest, as the @BarackObama tweet does, that the people who have selected a health plan in the exchanges are in anyway equivalent to the 3.9 to 4.2 million who were deemed eligible for Medicaid.

After all that, along with the IRS, AP and Rosen snooping issues, a competent media might be wondering if this president can be trusted on anything for the next three years. The polls would say maybe not.  Swap political affiliations and how would the coverage be going now?  But the media helped him get elected, twice, so there's no going back now.  Attacking him (as they would attack Christie) is in effect an attack on themselves.   So he's getting away with things.   But for most of them, if we could see their journolist communications, probably think things are going well right now.

Cut and Dried

It's not easy to find this video, but here it is... the House Speaker dryly recommending O-care be 'scrapped':

Boehner's a better politician than people think.  He refused to throw the Tea Party under the bus during the shutdown showdown, setting himself up now to appear as the consistent and principled leader.

By the way, compare and contrast a Boehner press conference with Obama's ridiculous 51 minute filibuster in which he took all of 5 questions.  By the time Obama reaches the second reporter Boehner would already be standing on the third tee.   And the press would have had the same amount of questions.   

It's the Credibility, Stupid

Jay Carney is in a near melt-down trying to defend the indefensible on the health care lies but such displays can be quite useful in determining just who is controlling the levers of power in this country. And the verdict ain't good..

“I know it’s spoken in tones of dramatic revelation,” Carney continued, “but it was a known fact at the time. We never pretended otherwise.” “But Jay,” Karl began. “That’d be that tone I was talking about,” Carney cracked.

Carney cannot take criticism.  It's bizarre to watch coming from a spokesman for the United States government.  But he really doesn't expect criticism  from anyone except the Fox News reporter, whom he often ridicules as a hack.  After yesterday's dustup ABC sent a new reporter and Carney repeated his talking points with a bit more tact, but Karl's colleagues took his place, peppering the bespectacled befuddler with question after question about whether the president needs to address the peeps over his iron-clad guarantee about insurance in the 0-care era, which some of them cannot keep, but Carney (like the president) just kept doubling-down.  His screaming message is basically "don't worry about yesterday, the law is gonna be so goooood".

But is that really what he wants to tell the public, that it's OK to lie for the cause so long as the cause is gonna be awesome in the long run, a sort of official ends justify means policy?   From the sunshine administration?  Or is this all just words again?

You Lie

Now what?  

MORE 10/30/13

Good grief, this is getting embarrassing now.

Working on 404care, 24/7

That's the message from the White House--they are working to fix the faulty 404care site "24/7".  This has been repeated over and over.   So the question is, who?  Who is working on this site in three shifts?  Does the government now own the software, meaning government employees are doing it, or is it still a contractor providing this 24/7 repair service?

It should be the contractor, since the government had no business ever accepting such a piece of junk system without first confirming that it worked.  So did they?  Are the taxpayers now having to pay extra for the contractor to fix this what should have never been accepted?  Sounds like they are calling in new contractors (experts) because Obama says he's pissed (and that's enough).

So are these new hired guns being hired under no-bid contracts via competitive bidding? Byron York claims the implementation money has already been spent.  So again, are taxpayers being saddled with fixing something already paid for which should have never passed IOC (Initial Operating Capability) or final acceptance?   We await the HHS Czarina's testimony.  Whenever that may come.    

Cruz Control

Cruz' filibuster is truly must-see TV for those who care about politics or current events.  I actually had to search for C-SPAN on Directv because I can't recall ever watching it on satellite.   The senator is a fantastic speaker, perhaps one of the best ever--and NOT because he has good pipes or can enunciate well or can read well from a prompter, but because he appears to be speaking from his heart and head right to the people.  I want to believe Cruz.   He comes off as simply a guy doing the right thing the way the Founders intended for our government to work.  I've seen a lot of slick-talking politicos though, so trust but verify applies.

Whether this is a golden moment for him, elevating him above the Irish mafia (McCain and McConnell, who are going to come off as old dinosaurs yelling for people to get off their lawns) or young guns like Rand Paul (where is he tonight?) remains to be seen, but it certainly seems it can't hurt him with independents and those being affected by Obamacare already.

Two things that are being talked about that should sting the Congress--and not just Democrats: the Obama-provided exemption for Congress out of the bill and the idea that many Dems are looking past Obamacare towards single payer, knowing the train wreck this bill has become.  Obama is certainly on record as being in favor of that outcome (will any reporter ever ask?) so it's nice to see it raised.

REACTION  9/24/13

Dana Milbank has already declared the filibuster a defeat and lambastes Cruz for being all about Ted.   As if the president never says "I".

The New York Times basically says that nobody likes him, even on his own side.

ABC is keeping track of his 'best lines'.

CBS is giving far more importance to a story about a toad with wings than Cruz, who is participating in a 'faux filibuster'. 

NBC is basically handling it as a news story, making sure they have Obama's response (unprecedented attempt to scare people) right under their Cruz story, while Fox isn't headlining it but does have several stories under their main headline about Kerry's intention to sign a UN treaty on arms control despite having no support for ratification in the Senate.  So wait, he's doing exactly what they say Cruz is doing. 

Allahpundit has a good summary with the usual opinions: Ted's all about himself and wants the presidency; he's an enigma who won't play team ball; he's a wacko bird; he's courageous and a man of his word.

As to the Ted is about Ted theory, let's say you have someone come to Washington, DC, let's call him Senator Smith, and he really is an outsider, he really is a man of principle, he really does care about the hinterlands and not the cocktail party set (as pointed out brilliantly in the book "This Town"), and who really loathes the cronyism and insularity of establishment politics.  How would that person be treated?    That's the conundrum here.  Fortunately we've got plenty of time to get a true measure of this man before he might run for higher office.

When Health Care is a Right...

...what happens when there are not enough doctors? 

But the provisions within the law are expected to increase the number of primary care doctors by perhaps 3,000 in the coming decade. Communities around the country need about 45,000.

One might envision several things: 1) patients will have to wait longer to get seen; 2) doctors might not be able to provide the same kind of service as before; 3) the government will be forced to assign doctors to 'underserved' regions, perhaps as a condition of a medical school student loan (overseen by the government)--or by more draconian means. But yeah, Obamacare is just a tax.

Liberty vs Security

The president yesterday, speaking about the affirmation of government-controlled health insurance mandates...



"..whose lives will be more secure due to this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it."  

More secure?  Well yes, due to the forced purchase of insurance resulting in the diminution of others' freedoms through taxation.   Back during the Bush years the liberals loved to point to how Bush had trampled the Constitution with his various national security programs, often hoisting up the ole Ben Franklin quote about the vileness of trading essential liberty for a little temporary safety.

It's unlikely that quote will be appearing on liberal blogs and newspapers anytime soon because Bush is gone and besides, most of them believe the general welfare clause allows any program Congress can dream up.  Then again, did the Franklin quote ever really mean what everyone thinks it meant?   Oh well, doesn't matter--it served it's purpose. 

Getting There...

The suspense is building to a crescendo!    Yes, will Eric Holder be voted in contempt or not.. no.  Of course everyone cares about Obamacare.   The nation will be at attention Thursday, focusing like a laser beam on the SCOTUS (and all the punditry thereafter).  Hell, people will be so focused the admin could release Bush-era records saying Saddam was behind 9/11 or Martians landed in Roswell in the 40s and few would notice.   Just imagine the chaos if Kim Kardashian got lost and somehow managed to show up outside the Supreme courthouse just as the verdicts were being announced.

I have no idea which way this is going.  None.   I hope the justices realize that a mandate is the slipperiest of slippery slopes and shoot it down, leaving Obama to do what he wanted to do in the first place...



He certainly sounds more like Mark Levin in this one as opposed to Nancy Pelosi..



But maybe they were just words.  The words we read and hear tomorrow will likely have longer-lasting effect.

TAKE THAT, BIATCHES!  

Kinda confused, I heard that was a reply of some sort but was wondering if it was part of the official SCOTUS opinion?   

But OK,  Roberts and company read the mind of Congress and called it a tax.  So it can remain.  Otherwise, if Congress had passed something forcing us to buy a product and penalized us for not buying it, and it wasn't called a tax, that would be wrong and a gross overstepping of government power.   That means when they force us to buy so many pounds of broccoli one day in the future they simply need to call it a tax and presto, it's constitutional!  Take that, biatches!

Wait though.  In reality such a thing would not pass because as Palin points out, if it were a tax it wouldn't have, er, passed.  People don't like taxes unless someone else is paying them.  Maybe Roberts wasn't part of a grand flim-flam, maybe he was trying to point out the importance of legislation and voting.

Of course now that it's officially a tax that means Obama has just raised taxes on those making less than 250K per year, which breaks his signature campaign promise.   He's got some splainin to do.  Meanwhile Romney, who had a mandate in Mass and has split the finest of hairs to explain why his was different than Obama's will be forced to campaign for repealing the very same vehicle that allowed his own signature legislation to pass.  What a mess.   Sounds like they're better off focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.    

Debating the Mandate

Althouse has a link to a Senate hearing on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Perhaps Congress should mandate everyone to watch it. Or would that be an overreach? Hey, maybe Congress themselves should have done this before passing the bill via reconciliation. We already knew this was in there.

I actually watched it all the way through, pausing a few tens of times. But I feel versed on both sides now. Here are my cliff notes:

Democrats largely behaved (aside from Franken, who showed his ass yet again). Their main points were 1) people will suffer while these GOP pinheads challenge our great leader's fantastic program, and 2) hey, maybe that Florida judge overreached and exercised judicial activism, just as our great leader said.

Fortunately this was a panel not to be toyed with. There were three who believed the Obamacare mandate was constitutional, and two who didn't (the Dems sneakily got a Reagan administration appointee to be their main arguer, along with a former Marine). None of them took kindly to being pigeonholed by either side, which was nice.

But as to the Dem points, the first was standard fare boilerplate for such hearings and was completely ignored. The second item was mildly spanked down by both the GOP Senators and almost all the panelists, in a civil manner, of course.

Senator Blumenthal also tried to make the point that the judiciary should presume that Congress is passing constitutional laws in the first place while deciding their business, added to by chairman Gulag Durbin who reminded everyone that Kay Bailey Hutchinson called a point of constitutional order or somesuch before the vote, which I guess he figured was enough to make it constitutional or something (maybe he shares a view of the document with his state colleague Hare). The panelists poo-poo'd that as well.

The most persuasive argument to me was that if the mandate passes muster then Congress could later compel all citizens to purchase other things. Using the vegetables example, they could not force someone to eat four servings of broccoli per day, but perhaps they could force one to buy four servings a day. Or they couldn't force you to go to the gym, but to buy a gym membership, etc.

None of them touched much on the issue of waivers for religious reasons or whether illegal aliens will be forced to participate in the mandate and if so, how that could be legal, but all in all it was well worth the time invested in watching.

Mandategate

From July 18, 2010:

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

In other words, the DOJ will defend state lawsuits on the grounds that health care mandates are actually a tax. But from September 20, 2009:



OK, perhaps this can be explained somehow. Because otherwise..

That Didn't Take Long

Give some committed liberals a bit of power and their heads balloon into the size of the Stay Puffed Marshmallow Man:

Kathleen Sebelius warned the insurance industry Monday not to look for loopholes in health care legislation and informed it that she will be writing regulations to ensure that the industry covers children with preexisting conditions, which some insurers insist is not a requirement of the law.

And she was threatening them for catching a loophole that Congress created. But no worries, the insurance companies have already bent over and thanked her while asking for another. Welcome to the new world--just don't call it socialism.

The obvious overriding takeaway from the story is her bullying tone, a harbinger of life to come under this scary group of self-congratulatory autocratic do-gooders. Funny, mainstream lefties whined for eight years about Bush being a fascist and now they are applauding this diminution of liberty by doubling down, as did Huffpo's Ryan Grim:

Sebelius's letter is an attempt to persuade the private industry to follow the spirit of the law. When Congress returns after the two-week recess, progressive Democrats will again be looking at ways to add a public option to the law. By threatening to refuse to insure sick children, insurers only make the case that much more persuasive.

Ah yes, whatever it takes (emphasis added):

Leadership is telling members to reach out to local chapters of the hundreds of national organizations that endorsed the health care legislation to help organize events in town. Instead of just holding a town hall, members are advised to find constituents who would be helped -- a child with preexisting conditions who can now get health insurance, or a small business that will benefit from new tax credits -- and host events with them showcasing how the bill reforms the health care system.

How appropriate, coming from Talking Points Memo. And how democratic. Of course the mainstream media will be there to help wherever they can. The only question now is whether this giant 50 foot woman can be stopped before she expands anymore.