So, why didn't the President return to Washington

Opinion 1.0

I think the one odd thing was after hearing about the near tradegy with Northwest flight 253 terrorism attempt on Christmas day was Obama not returning to Washington immediately. But, then again, he didn't respond for seventy two hours. I guess the waves are bitchin.' There is a widespread disapproval of how the messiah hasn't handled this crisis. Even his most trusted state run media friends like the Associated Press and Maureen Dowd. I think the bigger question is why? Why is the Obama administration taking this empathetic approach. This is when we need a strong President and determined resolve. Air travelers need to know that the government is doing everything possible to protect the flying public. Not to mention, this is a huge political risk after the lousy performance with the economy, unemployment, foreign policy and his policies in general. Janet Napolitano changed her tune on the success of the security. A smashing success to a total failure. I have a deep fear that the President doesn't treat this as a clear and present danger. Al Queda in Yemen will continue to develop ways to attack us. God forbid, will it take another 911 to wake up this administration? I pray not. I couldn't believe what I heard the other day, Obama blaming Bush again for this near terrorist success. This is not Presidential, it is bush league (no pun intended). Al Queda feels emboldened with such a weak and apologetic American leader. It has only been eight months and Obama still hasn't picked a TSA secretary. It's not important, it's only our national security at stake. Even the New York Daily News is telling the Obama to "get a grip."

The attempted bombing occurred at 11:30 a.m. Friday, Christmas. When finally Obama spoke after the weekend, he vowed to hunt down “all who were involved” and promised, as has become standard, to “use every element of our national power to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.”

Then, he went back to playing golf.

Obama said AbdulMuttalab was an isolated extremist. He is an Al Queda operative recruited, trained and outfitted by AQ in Yemen. But, he is just misunderstood. Dick Cheney, said it best:

“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.



“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”


 It will interesting to see how Mr. Obama reacts to these challenges and how he reacts to his negative press. 
 

 
The 'Fire Napolitano' Debate
By Andy McCarthy
 
A couple of months back, Sean Hannity invited me on his nightly panel on a special show that was dedicated to ten of the more problematic figures in the administration — Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, Carol Browner, John Holdren, and some others. (Napolitano was not egregious enough to be included.) Sean pressed me on whether this one or that one should be fired, and I just shrugged my shoulders. The suggestion (not by Sean, but in a lot of the public debate) had been that these people had not been properly vetted. My reaction was that they had been extensively vetted — the "czars," like Jones, were made czars rather than cabinet nominations precisely because they were the people President Obama wanted but he knew they'd never get through a confirmation hearing. Sure, you could fire those ten, but the same guy who picked them would be picking their replacements.

I never thought we should have created a Department of Homeland Security. People's memories are short. The original idea behind DHS was to solve "the Wall" problem — the impediments to intelligence-sharing that were making the FBI, our domestic intelligence service, ineffective. But while DHS was being debated and built, the FBI and the intelligence community furiously called on their allies on Capitol Hill and protected their turf. By the time DHS formally came into being, they made sure it had no intelligence mission — in fact, it had no real clear mission at all except to be the unwieldy home of a huge agglomeration of federal agencies. Basically, we moved the deck chairs around on the Titanic but did nothing to improve homeland security.

Napolitano is an apt representation of Obama-style detachment from national security: She doesn't know where the 9/11 hijackers came from; she doesn't know illegal immigration is a criminal offense; she won't utter the word "terror" (it's a "man-caused disaster," just like, say, a forest fire); she thinks the real terrorists are "right-wing extremists" aided and abetted by our soldiers returning home from their missions; when a jihadist at Fort Hood massacres more people than were killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, she won't call it terrorism and worries mostly about racist blow-back against innocent Muslims; she doesn't see any indications of a larger terrorist conspiracy even after a captured — er, arrested — terrorist tells agents he was groomed for the airplane operation by al Qaeda in Yemen; she thinks the "system worked" on Christmas when every element of it failed; and even her walk-back on the "system worked" comment — i.e., that it worked after the fact because all the planes then in the air were notified to take extra precautions "within 90 minutes" of the attack — is pathetic. You may recall that on 9/11, the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. and the second at 9:16 a.m.; the Pentagon was struck at 9:37 a.m., and, thanks to the heroic passengers of Flight 93, the last plane went down a little after 10 a.m. — about 20 minutes from its target in Washington. A lot can happen in 90 minutes.

When DHS came into being, a good friend of mine put it perfectly: "We already have a Department of Homeland Security and its address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." It is there, not at DHS, that the problem resides. The President has in place exactly the team he wants. To clamor for Napolitano's firing when she is just carrying out the boss's program is to shift the blame from where it belongs.

More Guns, Less Crime in '09

By Joe Gimenez

Americans went on binges buying guns and ammunition in early 2009, worried that a radical leftist president and Democrat-dominated Congress would violate their Second-Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The effects? Less murder, robbery, rape, and property crime, according to an FBI report released Monday. This gives the young president and Democrat Congress at least one proud but unintended accomplishment for which they'll never claim credit.


Indeed, gun buyers were out in droves in late 2008 and early 2009. While it's easy to infer that increased gun ownership figures align precisely with the drop in crime in the same calendar period, you won't see that headline in the New York Times, despite their penchant for such inferences about increases in crime coinciding with increasing "guns on the street."

The gun-buying started shortly before, and then took off after, Obama's election. The Toronto Star reported a 15% increase of 108,000 more FBI background checks in October 2008 than during the same month in 2007. People were already anticipating the dire consequences of an Obama victory. Then, in November 2008, the number of FBI background checks on applicants buying guns spiked 42% from the previous year. The FBI performed 12.7 million background checks in 2008, compared to 11.2 million in 2007, a 13% increase.

More evidence of rampant gun-buying loads up in the states. Through June 2009, the Texas Department of Public Safety received a monthly average of 12,700 applications for concealed handgun licenses, up 46% from the average in 2007. Even the New York Times noted how gun sales were up in 2009; in a June story, it focused on its less sophisticated neighbors in New Jersey. Even in liberal Massachusetts, gun permits surged 15% over the last two years (after falling several years before that).

While background checks and applications for concealed handgun licenses don't directly equate to the number of new guns on the street -- some applicants are refused, and applications can include multiple guns at the same time of purchase -- the numbers do indicate that more law-abiding Americans had new or enhanced arms in the first six months of 2009. Most criminals don't subject themselves to background checks.

(This is a good place to note that "new guns on the street" is just a liberal scare cliché we should not carelessly adopt. These statistics indicate the real dynamic: gun purchases and concealed licenses acquisitions are made predominantly by law-abiding citizens taking their guns home with them from the store, for self-defense, hunting, and target-shooting purposes.)

But shouldn't more guns equate to more murders and other violent crime? Only if you live in liberal never-never land.

That certainly has not been the case in early 2009. Guns are purchased so that good people can protect themselves against bad people. And moreover, self-protection is a basic human right, despite the fact that our new wise Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor couldn't bring herself to acknowledge that this summer.

The newspapers west of the Hudson River are chock full of stories in which law-abiding citizens protected themselves by using guns. And these are just the incidents that are reported. The Armed Citizen blog does a great job of capturing these stories in their raw form, and every thinking American needs to make his own inferences about the value of guns in these situations: They prevent people from becoming statistics. Go through the news reports compiled on the Armed Citizen blog and make your own count of people who refused to become statistics.

For instance, in May, eleven students in Atlanta avoided becoming murder statistics thanks to the bravery of one among them who had a gun in his backpack. He used it to kill one robber and injure another. Chillingly, the news reports describe how the robbers were counting their bullets to make sure they had enough to kill their victims. One of the robbers was about to rape a woman as well. That's at least thirteen fewer violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery) that did not need to be included in the FBI's crime report for the first half of 2009.

As 2009 winds down, the Democratic Party deserves an off-handed "thank you" for inspiring more law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons and protect themselves from bad people, at least in the first half of the year.

But even while giving them that tribute, it's important to reflect that the only direct result of their gun control efforts in the past -- the Clinton administration's regulation forbidding U.S. military personnel from carrying personal firearms -- resulted in the deaths of thirteen people and an unborn infant in Fort Hood.

Sadly, those deaths will add to an increase in the second half of 2009's statistics -- and renewed calls for gun control legislation, to be sure.

Polls you can live by:

25% Strongly approve of President Obama's job performance.
41% Strongly disapprove.
Presidential Approval Rating Index: -16
47% Somewhat approve of President's job performance.
52% Somewhat disapprove
Generic ballot-Republicans 43% Democrats 38%
40% Approve of healthcare reform
55% Oppose

Kill Bill Vol. III:


Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!

"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."

http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/

CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!

Quote du jour:
"Faithless is he what says farewell when the road darkens."  
J. R. R. Tolkien

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.nationalreview.com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.lauraingraham.com/
http://www.steynonline.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Joe Gimenez
Andy McCarthy
http://www.rasmussen.com/

Will the Government spending ever stop?

Opinion 1.0




Some days I am afraid to turn the news on. It seems that the only answer democrats have is to throw taxpayer money at problems instead of finding a remedy to fix them. Today, our elected leaders gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac an unlimited hand in the cookie jar. Yes, unlimited funds for the next three years. These two institutions are starting to resemble Amtrak. The proverbial money pit. Now, the U.S. government is the largest mortgage lender, the largest insurer, owns majority stakes in GM and Chrysler, took over Sallie Mae, still owns stakes in banks and is trying to takeover healthcare. Does anyone see a trend here? Timothy Geitner was the only solution to our financial crisis who didn't understand TurboTax for his personal income taxes. Has he done anything to help the econonmy? Ben Bernanke was named Time magazine's "Person of the year," when Hank Paulson was directed by Bernanke to threaten Ken Lewis of Bank of America not disclose the finincial problems of Merrill Lynch and not to back out of the deal or Lewis and the B of A board would be replaced. Geitner and Bernanke tell the journalist on the Sunday talk shows where the economy is recovering and everything is peachy. I don't want to sound pessimistic, I don't see the econonmy recovering as they prescribe. It won't until the unemployment goes down, homes start selling and customer confidence goes up. Since I write this blog, I constantly talk with people about many different political topics and the main two topics I hear are, of course, the economy and how president Obama has become such a disappointment. This comes from citizens who voted for him. Democrats and Independents feel that he lied to get elected, hasn't a clue about being President, and is so far to the left, he is bordering on socialism. Their words, not mine. I often mention that he was the most liberal Senator in the Senate Chamber and if you look at his past, has always swayed extreme left and followed socialist and people who hate America and the Constitution. In example, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Van Jones and Anita Dunn, to name a few. Read his books, you will learn a lot about the man. How he campaigned and what he does as President has been quite different. The other complaint I get is his former voters and conservatives are accusing Obama of being lathargic and not engaged. The most recent example is it took Mr. Obama seventy two hours to respond to the Christmas Day Northwest Flight 253 near disaster by a Nigerian terrorist. This act was a huge breech in airport security. Imagine if Bush took that long? The state run media would chastise him. Is the President competent to make these decisions? Is his handlers making the decisions? Unfortunately, only time will tell. The reason I bring up these points up is the majorities vote in whatever the boss wants. Right or wrong, they fall in line and then after the bill is passed, get in front of the cameras and say how bad it is. I read a few days ago, sixty per cent of Americans believe the stimulus bill has hurt the country. I hope the democrats do not attempt a second stimulus because the citizens are very concerned about government spending and the politicians are feeling the heat from their constituents about healthcare and spending. The Obama administration has been a "man caused disaster." I would not want to be a democrat up for midterm election next November. I would make sure my resume' was up-to-date. "Don't tread on me."

Michael Savage on Spending bill:


I wish you a very Happy New Year:


Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2009

(They must be so proud).
Washington, DC

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…” The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn’t until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: “Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned ‘full details’ of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG.” Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed “household help” ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington” list.

5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won’t be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton’s scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder’s former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder’s controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder’s politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.

6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama’s then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. According to Reuters: “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed.” Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.

7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President’s bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control -- through fiat and threats -- large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: “The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama’s “ethics” record -- and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.

8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)

9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file.” The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha’s nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military.”

10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: “The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.” Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

Question of the day:
Should Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano have to resign for the pitaful responses (flipflop) on the near tradegy on Christmas Day?

Worst Decade?:


Daft statement of the day:
"Systematic failure has occured."

Unhealthy Arrogance:

By Thomas Sowell

The only thing healthy about Congress' health insurance legislation is the healthy skepticism about it by most of the public, as revealed by polls. What is most unhealthy about this legislation is the raw arrogance in the way it was conceived and passed.


Supporters of government health insurance call its passage "historic." Past attempts to pass such legislation-- going back for decades-- failed repeatedly. But now both houses of Congress have passed government health care legislation and it is just a question of reconciling their respective bills and presenting President Obama with a political "victory."


In short, this is not about improving the health of the American people. It is about passing something-- anything-- to keep the Obama administration from ending up with egg on its face by being unable to pass a bill, after so much hype and hoopla. Politically, looking impotent is a formula for disaster at election time. Far better to pass even bad legislation that will not actually go into effect until after the 2012 presidential election, so that the public will not know whether it makes medical care better or worse until it is too late for the voters to hold the administration accountable.


The utter cynicism of this has been apparent from the outset, in the rush to pass a health care bill in a hurry, in order to meet wholly arbitrary, self-imposed deadlines. First it was supposed to be passed before the August 2009 Congressional recess. Then it was supposed to be passed before Labor Day. When that didn't happen, it was supposed to be rushed to passage before Christmas.


Why-- especially since the legislation would not take effect until years from now?


The only rational explanation for such haste to pass a bill that will be slow to go into effect is to prevent the public from knowing what is in this massive legislation that even members of Congress are unlikely to have read. That is also the only reason that makes sense for postponing the time when Obamacare goes into action after the next presidential election.


What does calling this medical care legislation "historic" mean? It means that previous administrations gave up the idea when it became clear that the voting public did not want government control of medical care. What is "historic" is that this will be the first administration to show that it doesn't care one bit what the public wants or doesn't want.


In short, this is not about the public's health. It is about Obama's ego and his chance to impose his will and leave a legacy.


This is not the only massive legislation to be rushed to passage in Congress and then left to go into effect slowly. The same political formula was used earlier, to pass the "stimulus" bill to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that the government doesn't have-- and that may well amount to more than a trillion dollars when the interest on the debt it creates is added, for this and the next generation to pay off.


Legislation is not the only sign of this administration's contempt for the intelligence of the public and for the safeguards of democratic government.


The appointment of White House "czars" to make policy across a wide spectrum of issues-- unknown people who get around the Constitution's requirement of Senate confirmation for Cabinet members-- is yet another sign of the mindset that sees the fundamental laws and values of this country as just something to get around, in order to impose the will of an arrogant elite.


That some of these "czars" have already revealed their own contempt for the values of American society in the things they have said and done only reinforces the point.


In a sense, this administration is only the end result of a long social process that includes raising successive generations with dumbed-down education in schools and colleges that have become indoctrination centers for the visions of the left. Our education system has turned out many people who have never heard any other vision and who can only learn what is wrong with the prevailing vision from bitter experience.


That bitter experience now awaits them, at home and abroad.

Kill Bill Vol. III:

Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!


"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."


http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/

CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!


Quote du jour:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein

References:http://www.biggovernment.com/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
http://www.nationalreview.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.jibjab.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.thomassowell.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://www.politico.com/






http://www.hotair.com/

Christmas Day's near tradegy in the air

Opinion 1.0

Eight years, three months and seventeen days after the unimaginable terrorist attack on America, another attempt on an Norgthwest flight 253 headed for Detroit, Michigan from the Netherlands. Thank the Lord that some proactive passengers stopped this maniac wearing explosive underwear from blowing up the plane. Was there an accomplice on the flight with AbdulMatallab? Authorities haven't shed light on that possibility. The Netherlands does not allow U.S. Air Marshals to escort flights from the Netherlands airports to the U.S. Why you ask? I think it is suprising that many foreign governments do not have the same level of security enforced by the Transportstion Security Agency (TSA). Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano said on Friday that the systems worked perfectly. On Sunday, she changed her story and said that they failed miserably (I'm sure she received a call from the boss). White House Press Secretary Robert (Peter Griffin) Gibbs said on the Sunday politi-talk shows that this is a "war on terrorism." I thought this administration didn't say that? It isn't PC. Many officials today are calling for investigations how something like this could happen. I am constantly vigilant and extremely concerned on when an attack could occur in our country. My biggest issue is the delicate (whimpy) stance the U.S. takes on ethnic and religious profiling. Most Muslims are law-abiding, regular family oriented people who just want to live the best we can. However, that one per cent is considered fanatical Jihadist that possess a quest to kill all infidels. It has been noted on several occasions that Muslim males between twenty and fifty are the radical Jihadists that want to attack us. I have never been called "politically correct." I do feel since all of the terrorist, jihadist or followers of Allah happen to be Muslim and are of Middle Eastern and Africa dissent. I'm sure the Islamic organizations will be lobbying to denounce any type of surveilance or scrutiny of Muslim males. This is the United States of America and we must devise a system to identify and watch the people deemed a threat to our way of life. This particular terrorist was on some "no fly" list, but not on all. Why? Why can't we organize "watch and no fly" lists with all law enforcement agencies around the world. I realize that is the issue, getting foreign and domestic agencies to get on the same page is very political and difficult. If we are going to be effective and resolute, the world must come together on this topic. My wife and I flew to New York City a few weeks ago for the weekend. TSA didn't look in our carry on luggage after we forgot to take out our toiletries. It was our mistake for not removing them and their mistake for not catching it. We visited the Twin Towers/911 site and I never want to see that type of destruction, fear, pain and anguish to smother our country again. I question the Obama administration on how they will react to this since they never admitted the Fort Hood murderer was a terrorist and the U.S. is trying the 911 terrorists in our court system instead of a military tribunal. This attempt of terrorism happened on Friday (Christmas day) and it took Obama seventy two hours to make a statement. I'm sure if Bush took this long, the state run media would have reacted the same? So, who is this terrorist? Umar Farouk AbdulMatallab, 23 years old, from Nigeria, form a wealthy family where he lived in a five million dollar home in London and attended excellent schools. I guess the paradigm of only poor muslims are willing to blow thenselves up is out the window. The terrorist's own father contacted authorities in regards that he suspected his son of being a terrorist. That information was not acted on. A group located on the Arabic Peninsula, a faction of Al Queda, was responsible for this attempted attack in retaliation for the U.S. bombing their terrorist training camps in Yemen. Unfortunately, air travel is going to be like the old days in Soviet Russia where you will wait days to get on your flight. The airport authorities are stating that you should be at the airport three hours ahead of your flight! I have witnessed passengers travelling in their pajamas, now, this will become the norm with longer waits and more intense security systems. Can anyone say "puffer systems." this would have detected this terrorist's chemicals on his person. In this day and age, we need to be at our best when it comes to national security to protect our citizens.  What we should learn fron this is we are not as safe as we might have assumed. We need to take on the mindset we had right after 911. That will keep us safe, the Israelis live this montra everyday.

Matt Lauer hammering Janet Incompetano:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2010-Regime change in Iran:
Stephen F. Hayes

Engagement didn't workAs a candidate, Barack Obama pledged to meet with leaders of rogue states "without preconditions." He said the foreign policy of the United States had become too aggressive, even domineering, under George W. Bush. We had made too many demands and spent too much time lecturing and too little time listening. An Obama administration would use "smart power" to change all of that. Iran would be the first and most urgent test.




The new president started early.


"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," he said in his Inaugural Address, employing language he would use repeatedly about Iran over his first year in office. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."




The speech was an extended hand. And the response was a clenched fist. "Obama is the hand of Satan in a new sleeve," said a spokesman for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. "The Great Satan now has a black face."


Obama was not discouraged. He offered best wishes on the Iranian New Year in March, promising "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect." His administration then proposed face-to-face meetings to discuss nuclear issues. Obama wrote directly to Khamenei in May, renewing the offers of friendship. When the regime brazenly stole the presidential election in June, Obama refused
to question the results. (White House spokesman Robert Gibbs would later call Ahmadinejad the "elected leader" of Iran.) And when the regime violently cracked down on the nationwide postelection protests--jailing some opposition leaders and killing others--Obama worried primarily about any perception of U.S. "meddling" in internal Iranian disputes and repeated the American commitment to engagement. When Iran failed to meet a September deadline for answers on nuclear negotiations, Obama gave them until the end of the year. When Obama announced that Iran was building a secret uranium enrichment facility at Qom, which could have no peaceful uses, he coupled his announcement with an offer for more talks.


And on it went.


As often as not, Iran failed to respond to these goodwill gestures. And when it did, the responses were uniformly negative and usually hostile. Khamenei accused Obama of following the "crooked ways" of George W. Bush. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran was "running the show" on nuclear issues and vowed that Iran would "never negotiate" about its nuclear program. The Iranian government accused the Obama administration of orchestrating the opposition rallies and mocked his private missives. And last week, when the Obama administration reminded the Iranian regime of the new deadline for negotiations, Ahmadinejad dismissed the gentle chiding, saying: "They say we have given Iran until the end of the Christian year. Who are they anyway? It is we who have given them an opportunity." The international community, he added, can give "as many deadlines as they want, we don't care."

The problem, it turns out, was not George W. Bush. It wasn't a lack of American goodwill or our failure to acknowledge mistakes or our underdeveloped national listening skills. The problem is the Iranian regime.



This should have been clear from the beginning, and should have been glaringly obvious after the fraudulent election and the deadly response to the brave Iranians who questioned the results. There were plenty of clues: an Iranian president who routinely denies the Holocaust and threatens to annihilate Israel; a long record of using terrorism as an instrument of state power; the provision of safe haven to senior al Qaeda leaders in the months and years after the 9/11 attacks; and a policy, approved at the highest levels of the Iranian leadership, of trying to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.


What should now be clear, even to the letter-writers of the Obama administration, is that the only way to solve the problem is to change the regime. Obama missed a unique opportunity to undermine the regime after the elections this summer, when it was as fragile as it has been since the 1979 revolution. It may well be too late, but there are still things the leader of the free world should do.


The president has signaled that his patience with Iranian intransigence will end with the close of 2009. It's time for Obama to signal a dramatic change in strategy. Quickly and decisively after the New Year, he should do four things: (1) Make clear that he is


on the side of the Iranian opposition and will do everything he can to add to their strength. (2) Enact the toughest possible sanctions on Iran--especially targeting refining capabilities--with broad international support if available, but with as many allies as will go along or unilaterally, if not. (3) Make clear that he will be taking a zero tolerance view of Iranian support for terrorism, including the deliberate targeting of U.S. diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. (4) Make clear that the use of force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons isn't off the table, and order the military to be ready to act should it become necessary.


In 2009, we tried to engage the Iranian regime. In 2010, let's try to change it.


--Stephen F. Hayes

Iran Protest & Riots I & II:

Daft speech of Max Baucus:
Party On to the Max:

What the heck was that? Probably, single malt scotch.


JibJab 2009 Year in review:



Kill Bill Vol. III:

Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!

"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."


http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/

CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!


Polls you can live by:


28% Strongly approve of President Obama's job performance.
40% Strongly disapprove.
Presidential Approval Rating Index: -12
47% Somewhat approve of President's job performance.
52% Somewhat disapprove
Generic ballot-Republicans 44% Democrats 36%


Quote du jour:

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."


General George S. Patton, U.S. Army

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.rasmussen.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.heritage.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.nbcnews.com/

Santa is giving Reid, Dodd, Schummer & Baucus coal in their stockings!

Opinion 1.0

Happy Christmas Eve! It is freezing here in the People's Republic of Maryland. There is stil a lot of snow on the ground. Waking up this morning, Fox was showing the senate vote and how happy the democrats were in signing this disaster of a bill. Even democratic associates and  pundits are denouncing the contents of the senate bill. So why are they pushing this so badly? Obama needs something positive for his "State of the Union" speech since our economy is still in a recession, 10% unemployment, 2.2% GDP (revised downward twice), non-existent foreign policy and the President's poll numbers are at historic lows. Even some of the liberal left are turning on the President. One of the biggest problems is that no one believes anything the Obama administration says. They have been caught in so many lies and contradictions. This will be the beginning of the end for the democrats if this passes the congress. Obama will become a lame duck President two years into his first term. Congress will not be back until January 18th, two days before Obama's first State of the Union speech. I doubt congress can agree on anything in that time period. However, Obama will promote the fact that the house and the senate have approved separate bills. So much for the bi-partisanship! If he gives himself a grade of "B+," I will throw up in my mouth. He thinks he has done a good job and his administration has brought the U.S. back from destruction. Duh! He hasn't even parted the seas yet? He employs a herd of tax cheats, communists (Van Jones & Anita Dunn) and Constitution haters. And lets not forget the incredible transparency and open administration. I'm not sure if we have a Presidential administration or a CIA covert operation.  Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid and Nancy (SanFranGranNan) Pelosi have already stated that healthcare negotiations will be behind closed doors. So much for transparency. I believe 2010 will show the country what the American public can accomplish by uniting against Obama's socialist's agenda. We will show our tenacity and perseverance in organizing opposition to show that we are a viable force to be reckoned with. I know the far left doesn't take this movement seriously. They will, especially, when they return home to their constituents. It will be an eye-opener. Please have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the things that are important. This is not a dress rehearsal, live life everyday, like it is your last.  

The Pres - Passage of senate bill:
 

Michelle Malkin dicing them up:


Michelle Malkin:



What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare


Changes to Medicare will give the feds control of surgical decisions.
 
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

Democrats are touting the American Medical Association's endorsement of President Obama's health plan. But there's an important reason why the American College of Surgeons and 18 other specialty groups are opposed.

The plan's most tangible efforts to restrain medical costs are through its controls on specialist physicians. Based on the government's premise that they often make wasteful treatment decisions, the health-care legislation in Congress will subject doctors to a mix of financial penalties and regulations to constrain their use of the most costly clinical options. The penalties and regulations are aimed first and foremost at surgeons and the medical devices that they use, largely because that's where the bulk of spending is.

It all starts with the sweeping power that the Senate bill gives to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The agency will be given the authority to unilaterally write new rules on when medical devices and drugs can be used, and how they should be priced. In particular, the Obama team wants to give the agency the power to decide when a cheaper medical option will suffice for a given problem and, in turn, when Medicare only has to pay for the least costly alternative.

The government has already sought to acquire this same power administratively. But on Tuesday the Obama Justice department got swatted down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in what the judges described in their opinion as an attempt by Mr. Obama's legal team to "end-run around the statute [Medicare]."

Hays v. Sebelius involved a patient who said Medicare unfairly denied her a prescribed treatment for her serious lung disease. Medicare decided instead to pay for a different drug that bureaucrats argued was a suitable but cheaper alternative.

Now the Obama team will use murky provisions embedded in the Senate bill to subtly attain in law those powers they couldn't more artfully acquire in court. In fact, the bill lets Medicare seek almost any restrictive payment authority it wants from a Medicare Commission established for the purposes of cost control.

If Congress believes Medicare has overreached, it has to pass a separate law to explicitly block the agency's newly acquired powers. These provisions are deliberately designed to leverage Congress's inability to act in a timely fashion.

The Senate health-care bill also exempts Medicare's actions from judicial review, taking away the right of patients to sue the government. Unlike existing Medicare coverage laws, patients won't have the ability to appeal any of the decisions of this new Medicare Commission.

Ironically, private health insurers must comply with new patient appeals rights under the Senate bill. The government has exempted itself from the same sort of protections.

Thus Medicare will have the power to control which medical devices surgeons use. But clamping down on expensive procedures also means the agency will need to have authority over the specialists themselves. The organization of doctors into mostly small, disaggregated practices always made it hard for a central bureaucracy to control individual physicians. ObamaCare tries to fix this by putting doctors on the financial hook for their treatment decisions.

Primary-care doctors who refer patients to specialists will face financial penalties under the plan. Doctors will see 5% of their Medicare pay cut when their "aggregated" use of resources is "at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization," according to the chairman's mark of Section 3003 of the bill. Doctors will feel financial pressure to limit referrals to costly specialists like surgeons, since these penalties will put the referring physician on the hook for the cost of the referral and perhaps any resulting procedures.

Next, the plan creates financial incentives for doctors to consolidate their practices. The idea here is that Medicare can more easily apply its regulations to institutions that manage large groups of doctors than it can to individual physicians. So the Obama plan imposes new costs on doctors who remain solo, mostly by increasing their overhead requirements—such as requiring three years of medical records every time a doctor orders routine medical equipment like wheelchairs.

The plan also offers doctors financial carrots if they give up their small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups, or become salaried employees of large institutions such as hospitals or "staff model" medical plans like Kaiser Permanente. One provision, laid out in Section 3022, allows doctors to share with the government any savings to the government they achieve by delivering less care—but only if physicians are part of groups caring for more than 5,000 Medicare patients and "have in place a leadership and management structure, including with regard to clinical and administrative systems."

While these payment reforms are structured as pilot programs in the legislation, this distinction has little practical meaning. Medicare is being given broad authority, for the first time, to roll these demonstration programs out nationally without the need for a second authorization by Congress.

Regulation of medicine has always been a local endeavor, and it's mostly the province of medical journals and professional medical societies to set clinical standards. This is for good reason. Medical practice evolves more quickly than even the underlying technologies that doctors use. This is especially true in surgery, where advances flow from experimentation by good doctors to try different surgical approaches.

The regulation of medical devices and their pricing will also have consequences for patients by discouraging innovation. Most improvements in medical devices come incrementally, with each generation of a device having small but clinically relevant advance over prior versions. This owes to the underlying hardware, which turns on embedded software and microprocessors that themselves undergo constant upgrades.

But if Medicare starts pricing similar devices off one another—a form of the same "reference" pricing schemes used in Europe—manufacturers will start holding back the small changes. Instead, they will introduce new models every four or five years that are sufficiently unique to fall outside of Medicare's pricing scheme. Meanwhile, patients will have lost the benefit of regular improvements and annual upgrades that characterize medical devices today.

The impact of these provisions won't be confined to Medicare. Private insurance sold in the federally regulated "exchanges" will take cues from Medicare, since they're both managed from the same bureaucracy. Medicare will set the standard for medical care across the entire marketplace.

Mr. Obama promised that under his plan people wouldn't have to change their doctors. But it's clear that doctors will be forced to change how they make their medical decisions.

Dr. Gottlieb, an internist and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is a former senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies.

I would be honored to thank all of the men and women who serve our country in uniform. You are away from your families, friends and surroundings at this time of year. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and a safe and quick return home.


Here's to you, soldiers of the 1-17 in Afghanistan

By David Ignatius

Thursday, December 24, 2009

BASE FRONTENAC, AFGHANISTAN It's a week before Christmas Eve, and the chow hall of this forward operating base north of Kandahar is decorated with twinkling blue and white lights for the holidays. There are posters of Santa and a snowman on the walls, and in the center of the room there's a big sign that exhorts the soldiers: "Enjoy Meal." Christmas will be "a day to take your boots off" for the 800 members of the Army's 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment based here, says their commander, Lt. Col. Jonathan Neumann. It also will be a day to remember the 21 comrades who have been killed since the battalion arrived in August, and the 41 who have been seriously wounded.

The 1-17 has the grim distinction of having lost more soldiers in action than any other battalion in the Army since Sept. 11, 2001. The men's names are recorded on a concrete slab in the center of the compound, bearing the legend "Fallen But Not Forgotten."

"After a catastrophic incident, you come together and take care of your brothers," says Neumann. "Then you resolve to get back to the mission at hand." Christmas will be a moment to relax -- a day of sports, award ceremonies and a special meal. But because of combat rotation, the battalion will have to celebrate it over a series of days.

I traveled here with Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was making a holiday visit to the war zone. Amid the twinkling lights of the mess hall, he addressed the soldiers of the 1-17, their automatic rifles stowed under the meal tables.

"I know you've been in a very tough fight, and I'm aware of those you've lost," Mullen told the troops, assuring them: "We have the right strategy." He met afterward with a small group from units that had been especially hard hit.

This holiday season is a good time to remember these faraway soldiers. The debate over Afghanistan has provoked strong feelings, pro and con. But the country seems united in its appreciation for a military that has been suffering the stresses of war, without complaint, for the past eight years.

Soldiers are usually stoics. But the members of this battalion seem highly motivated. The sergeant of a platoon that lost nine men in two weeks asked to reenlist after a memorial service for his buddies. On the day Mullen visited here, the admiral reenlisted 10 soldiers.

The base lies in a dusty plain surrounded by jagged peaks. Nearby is the Arghandab River, which feeds a lush area of orchards and mud-walled agricultural plots that the soldiers call "the green zone." That's where the Taliban fighters hide and where the battalion has fought some of its toughest battles.

 When the battalion arrived on Aug. 7, about 150 Taliban fighters were well entrenched. Neumann says his soldiers had to "fight our way to the people." By early November, the situation had begun to change. The Taliban's cadres had been killed or had scattered, their supply caches had been destroyed -- and the local population began providing intelligence.

That's the model the Obama administration hopes will be replicated in other population centers as the United States sends in 30,000 more soldiers. One thing that's painfully clear when you visit this base is that success won't come cheap. The new strategy will mean more battles, more targets for roadside bombs, and more dead and wounded American soldiers.

The White House debate over Afghanistan took place as the battalion was suffering its worst casualties. The policy-wrangling directly affected these troops, but it became "white noise," says their commander. "We knew there was a debate in Washington, but there's always a debate." The 17th Infantry has a history of tough fights. Its nickname, the "Buffaloes," dates back to the Korean War, where it fought in the battle of Pork Chop Hill, a bloody push to win territory that arguably had little strategic value. But even that conflict was easier to measure than the one the Buffaloes are fighting now. "Here, it's one small incident at a time," says Neumann.

There's a scraggly Christmas tree atop one of the prefabricated trailers where the soldiers of the 1-17 bunk when they're not out on missions. It's not a place any of us would want to spend the holidays, but in conversations with soldiers here, I didn't hear any complaints.

In this season of peace, here's a holiday toast to people everywhere who don't have that blessing today.

davidignatius@washpost.com

Quote du jour:
"Aren't we forgeting the true meaning of Christmas? You know, the birth of Santa."

Matt Groening (1954 - )

Kill Bill Vol. III:


Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!

"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."

http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/

CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!


References:

http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.nro,com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.newsbusters.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.marklevin.com/
http://www.anncoulter.com/
David Ignatius
Scott Gottlieb, MD