Friday, November 29, 2013

Soon after President Obama told the White House press corps he was solely responsible for the botched Obamacare rollout, he decided to shift part of the blame on Republicans.

A mea culpa can be hard to deliver in public when you are the kind of politician who thinks he never mistakes and rarely if ever apologizes for anything that went wrong. But Obama's apologies have a brief shelf life, and a few days later they had reached their expiration date.

So at a gathering of business executives on Tuesday, Nov. 19, the president concluded that he had done enough groveling over his utterly false claim that "if you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it" and went on the political attack.

Somehow he decided that the Republicans in Congress were partly to blame for the bungled mess that he and his administration had created. That it wasn't all his fault.

He also said the broken, online, sign-up system was in the process of being fixed and would be up and running at full throttle by the end of November. That doesn't seem to be the case entirely, but more on that in a moment.

Then he turned on the Republicans with a vengeance. He suggested that their intransigent political opposition had inhibited the law's implementation.

"One of the problems we've had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in its failure," he told the chief financial officers at the Wall Street Journal's CEO Council meeting in Washington last week.

And he also suggested the Republicans' "ideological resistance to the idea of dealing with the uninsured and people with preexisting conditions" was also a factor in what went wrong.

Republicans had their own ideas about how to provide wider access to lower cost health care, but it was not the costly, government-run, top-down bureaucracy Obama wanted and got from the Democrats.

The larger organizational problems that presumably led to the mess the government is still trying to fix stemmed from the political bickering in Washington that threatened to damage his presidency's signature achievement, he further suggested.

Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue needed to "break through the stubborn cycle of crisis politics and start working together," he said.

Well, I did a little checking with Constitutional scholars, and no one can find any provision in the Constitution that gives lawmakers any role in the executive branch to help implement and/or administer laws passed by Congress.

Obama has made bombastic claims over the course of his presidency that have not proven true. But to blame the Republicans for any part this debacle -- who control only one half of Congress -- is a huge reach, to say the least.

By the way, he also blamed the government's archaic, information- retrieval, computer system, saying the federal government's IT system is "not very efficient."

Well, whose fault is that? He's the chief executive who is in charge of seeing that the laws are carried out in a fair and efficient way and insuring that they work and meet all deadlines.

Judging from the mountain of government audits that have exposed waste, inefficiencies and other skullduggery in his administration, he's not the least bit interested in the details and process of running anything -- least of all his health care mess.

Now, about his claim that Obamacare's online computer system would be fixed and ready for business by Nov. 30. Well, not all of it.

His promise to the CFOs came immediately after an administration official who oversees the technical side of the federal health insurance marketplace told Congress that 30 to 40 percent of the overall system was unfinished and not ready to go.

Henry Chao, deputy chief information officer for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said major parts of Obama's program, including its accounting and payments to insurance companies, were still incomplete.

"If the business functions are not in place on time, it could create havoc with a system through which billions of dollars in federal tax money will flow to subsidize coverage for consumers who otherwise could not afford it, insurance industry officials said," Reuters news agency reported.

"The upshot is that the (financial management).... appears to be way off track and getting worse," a CMS official said in a July 8 e- mail, obtained by Reuters.

The first payments were due by mid-to-late January, but now we learn that the accounting system is far from ready to process the most critical part of Obamacare.

But bigger financial problems loom on the horizon that could bring Obamacare crashing down before it even gets started.

One is the need to get very large numbers of younger, healthier people to sign up for insurance to pay for older, and poorer beneficiaries. The administration promised the insurance industry this would happen, but now that is very much in doubt.

"I now think there is little hope we are going to get enough younger, healthy people to sign up, and that means that this law is in grave danger of financial collapse," Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a health care industry consultant, told the Washington Post.

The number of people who have signed up thus far are relatively small, far from the tens of millions of applicants needed to make it work.

There are also troubling questions about whether the Internal Revenue Service will be ready to carry out nearly four dozen new tasks under the law.

The IRS must figure out who has insurance and who does not, and thus who they will fine for being uninsured, plus begin to distribute trillions of dollars in insurance subsidies.

Meanwhile, five million Americans have had their private insurance policies cancelled, and businesses are laying off employes or reducing hours worked to avoid Obama's unpopular and unworkable insurance mandates.

And Obama has started to blame the Republicans who warned this would happen and voted against it.

The Ugly End of the Duke Lacrosse Story  
 Brent Bozell/ Townhall Columnist

 
On Nov. 22, with the national media focused on the 50th anniversary of former President John F. Kennedy's death, few noticed the story of a jury in North Carolina convicting Crystal Mangum of murder in the 2011 kitchen stabbing death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye. Why should that fact fixate the national media? 
On its own, it shouldn't. But in 2006 and 2007, Mangum's false charges of rape against three Duke University lacrosse players caused a national tsunami of media sensation, an angry wave of prejudiced coverage presuming the guilt of rich white college boys when being accused by an African-American stripper.

More than any other media outlet, The New York Times trumpeted Mangum's rape accusations, even after they fell apart. As other liberal media were backing away, the Times published a notorious, error-riddled 5,700-word lead story on Aug. 25, 2006, by Duff Wilson, who argued there was enough evidence against the players for Michael Nifong, the atrocious local prosecutor (who would later be jailed and disbarred), to bring the case to trial.

Within the Times, perhaps the most aggressive accuser was then-sports columnist Selena Roberts, who made a habit of comparing the accused Duke lacrosse players to drug dealers and gang members.

Roberts continued to lob charges of white privilege in her last column on the subject in 2007: "Don't mess with Duke, though. To shine a light on its integrity has been treated by the irrational mighty as a threat to white privilege. Feel free to excoriate the African-American basketball stars and football behemoths for the misdeeds of all athletes, but lay off the lacrosse pipeline to Wall Street, excuse the khaki-pants crowd of SAT wonder kids." She lamented, "some news media jackknifed as they moved from victim's advocate to angel-tinting the lacrosse team."

To Roberts, the false accuser never stopped being the victim. Roberts never wrote a retraction for her columns that relentlessly championed a false narrative. She is the Al Sharpton of sports columnists.

The coverage ended. Well, there was one small trickle of news. In December 2010, The New York Times ran a tiny wire item in the sports section about the Duke lacrosse "victim" being found guilty of "misdemeanor child abuse and damaging property. A Durham County jury convicted Crystal Mangum, 32, of contributing to child abuse or neglect, injury to personal property and resisting a public officer after a February confrontation with her live-in boyfriend."

Then, in 2011, Mangum was indicted for murdering her boyfriend. Again, it was a tiny item in the Times -- a brief at the bottom of page B-14 of the sports section, under "Lacrosse": "Crystal Mangum, who falsely accused three Duke players of raping her in 2006, was charged with murder in the death of her boyfriend."

So when Mangum was convicted of murder on Nov. 22, now would it garner serious attention? The Times ran a tiny, 98-word wire story. There were no burning columns from the successors of Roberts.

Now remember that the entire time Mangum was ruining the reputations of three young men, the media kept her identity a secret. But now that her secret of lying and even murder is out, the secret remains, at least on the media's radar screen.

There were no Duke-accuser updates on ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, USA Today or The Washington Post.

Like Roberts, ABC legal reporter Terry Moran didn't easily let go of the blame-the-rich-whites game in the spring of 2007, writing for his ABC blog: "Perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for (the falsely arrested Duke lacrosse players) is just a bit misplaced ... As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives ... They are very differently situated in life from, say, the young women of the Rutgers University women's basketball team."

Those women were briefly, unfairly smeared one day in a bad Don Imus joke at 6 a.m., as "nappy-headed hos." Few would have heard it if liberals hadn't flagged it. Just as liberals flagged some falsely accused lacrosse players who were only guilty of being rich and white.

On Saturday, Nov. 23, CNN offered two segments on Mangum's conviction. Defense attorney Mark Geragos offered a strong post-trial verdict: "I thought at the time that that (Duke lacrosse) prosecution was not only ill-advised but that prosecutor and we were vindicated to some degree was -- ended up being disbarred."

"Now you have a woman, and, you know, somebody had remarked to me this morning, karma is a bitch," he said. "You've got a situation where, you know, she had at least arguably a decent defense in this case, but has absolutely no credibility."

The national media also lost credibility in this Mangum mess. Their coverage at the start was outrageous, as was their suppression at the end.

CNN Poll: More Americans Pessimistic About State of Nation

Image: CNN Poll: More Americans Pessimistic About State of Nation
 By: Sandy Fitzgerald / Newsmax

Americans are becoming even more pessimistic about the state of the nation, according to a new CNN/ORC International poll released Friday, with more than half saying conditions are going badly.

The survey, conducted on Nov. 18-20 of 843 adults, showed that 41 percent believe conditions are going well, marking the lowest that number has been in a CNN poll since February 2012.

Meanwhile, 59 percent say things are going badly, a number up nine points since the last poll in April. The opinions were along a partisan divide, as well as a difference of opinion between younger and older people.
 
"There's a slight generational divide, with 46 percent of those under age 50 saying things are going well. That number drops to 36 percent for those 50 and older," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
 
Americans are also pessimistic about the economy, the poll showed. Thirty-nine percent believe the economy is still declining, and just 24 percent believed a recovery is occurring. Meanwhile, 36 percent said they do not believe there is a recovery going on, but still think conditions are becoming stable.
 
The numbers were similar to those from a CNN/ORC International survey in October, when 59 percent predicted poor economic conditions a year from now, while 40 percent said the economy would be in good shape next year, marking the lowest level of optimism from the public in two years.
 
Partisan and geographic divides also came into play when it came to the economy. Forty-five percent of people who are 50 or older say the economy remains in a downturn, but 34 percent of people younger than 50 said the economy is declining.
 

Netanyahu vows to banish "darkness" of Iran nuclear program

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

BNetanyahu.jpg

A light unto the nations indeed. "Netanyahu vows to banish ‘darkness’ of Iran nuclear program," by Joshua Davidovich for the Times of Israel, November 28:
Melding the Hanukkah holiday and foreign affairs, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu solemnly vowed to act as a “light unto the nations” and act against Iran’s nuclear program should diplomacy fail Thursday night. 
Speaking at the Western Wall for a Hanukkah candle-lighting ceremony, Netanyahu compared Iran’s nuclear program to a darkness that would be forced out by Israel, referencing a popular children’s song for the holiday.
“We came to drive out the darkness, and the largest darkness that threatens the world today is a nuclear Iran,” he said. “We are bound to do all we can to prevent this darkness. If possible we will do this diplomatically, if not we will act as a light unto the nations.”Jerusalem has denounced a deal signed Sunday between Iran and six world powers that eases sanctions in return for limits on uranium enrichment and a more intrusive inspections regime.
Earlier Thursday, Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli National Security Council took to the pages of The New York Times to rail against the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, calling the accord a diplomatic failure that missed the mark in diverting Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.
“The agreement represents a failure, not a triumph, of diplomacy,” Amidror wrote.
Netanyahu has been castigated at home and abroad for taking a harsh stand against the US and Europe for signing the deal, with critics claiming he is deepening Israel’s isolation while strengthening the Iranian regime.
The prime minister, however, said he had “not given in to delusions” that Iran would pull back its nuclear program, comparing the nuclear deal to a failed diplomatic initiative meant to stymie North Korea’s nuclear program.
“I believe in speaking the truth, and standing for important principles in order to ensure peace in the world and our security, and of course our peace,” he said. “We will continue to act in this spirit.”
The prime minister added that Jerusalem was in talks with the US and P5+1 to ensure that a final deal “brings a final result of the dismantling of Iran’s ability for a military nuclear program.”...

The Democrats Get Desperate

by   / Personal Liberty Digest


The Democrats Get Desperate
Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, is no stranger to political confrontation. He had some doozies (including two shutdowns of the Federal government) back when Bill Clinton was President.

But he says nothing that happened back then can match the Democrats latest power grab. In a column titled “The Death of the Senate,” he wrote: “No one should be confused about what happened [last Thursday]. The Obama Democrats killed the United States Senate as a deliberative body 226 years after the Founding Fathers created it.”

What happened eight days ago to lead to this harsh appraisal? After years of threatening to employ the “nuclear option” to limit debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally pushed the button. The Democrats rammed through a resolution on a straight 52-48 party-line vote that will keep Republicans from using filibusters to prevent confirmation of various Presidential appointees.

They did this in part so they could finally get the additional liberal votes they want on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I mentioned in last week’s column how vital they think this is to protect many of Barack Obama’s unConstitutional usurpations of power. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out: “[T]he D.C. Circuit in particular will now have more liberal judges to hear challenges to [the President’s] unilateral climate-change power grab or his rewrite by fiat of the Affordable Care Act.”

My, how times have changed. Back in 2005, the shoe was on the other foot. Republicans controlled the White House and had a majority in the Senate. So the Democrats used the filibuster, or the threat of doing so, to prevent votes on dozens of George W. Bush’s nominees.

When Republicans threatened to use the nuclear option to end their delaying tactics, Democrats were outraged. Back then, Obama was a mostly unknown junior Senator from Illinois. Here’s what he said at the time: “Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”

Back then, it was hard to imagine “the fighting, the bitterness and the gridlock” getting any worse. But that’s certainly what’s happened, isn’t it?

The future President wasn’t the only one to protest the Republican threat. At the time, Harry Reid was the Minority Leader in the Senate. Here’s what he had to say:
[The filibuster] encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail. It also separates us from the House of Representatives — where the majority rules. And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government… Separation of Powers… Checks and Balances. … [T]he filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.
Of course, the Democrats haven’t worried about “moderation” or “consensus” since they won a majority. And Harry Reid has turned out to be one of the most mean-spirited, uncompromising and punitive leaders the Democrats have ever selected.

When Republicans threatened to use the nuclear option eight years ago, no one was more passionate, or more sanctimonious, in protesting the threat than then-Senator Joe Biden. He declared: “We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is fundamental power grab by the majority party… We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.”

Biden said his opposition to the measure was “the single most important vote” he cast during his three decades in the Senate. And listen to this. In a comment that I’ll bet he would love to delete from the history books, he then added: “I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

So what’s changed, gentlemen? Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) explained what’s really going on. “The heart of this action is directed at packing the D.C. Circuit,” he said, “because that is the court that will review the lawless behavior of the Obama Administration implementing Obamacare.”

And the Tea Party favorite added, “President Obama and the Administration refuse to follow the plain text of the law, and the D.C. Circuit court is the court of appeals that has been holding the Administration accountable.”

John Hayward, a staff writer for Human Events, was even more eloquent in his description of the Democrats’ duplicitous action:
Sure, they’re liars and hypocrites who never meant a word they said during the Bush era, shameless political hacks who abandoned all that lofty rhetoric about ripping out the beating heart of democracy in a mad power grab designed to grease the wheels for Obama’s lame-duck years. They desperately need to change the subject from Obamacare’s failure, while packing the D.C. Circuit Court with loyal Party operatives to thwart legal challenges that could bring the hated Affordable Care Act down.
Of course, the left will proclaim that this is all the Republicans’ fault. That it was their “obstructionism” that made the Senate so dysfunctional. And this naked power grab is supposed to make things better?

Three years ago, the Democrats used their super-majority in the Senate to ram through the monstrosity known as Obamacare. They did it on a straight party-line vote. They were willing — nay, eager — to force the most unpopular piece of legislation since Prohibition on us, without getting a single Republican to vote with them.

How much more repugnant legislation will they jam down our throats now? We’re about to find out.

In less than two months, the temporary deadline that Congress approved earlier this year to suspend the debt ceiling will expire. They’ll also be confronted with the need to approve some sort of Federal budget.

Meanwhile, the “new and improved” website for Obamacare is supposed to be up and running this Sunday. I’ll take a look next week at how much worse this train wreck is going to be.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

MSM Tries To Gloss Over Black Violence
by   / Personal Liberty Digest

MSM Tries To Gloss Over Black Violence
PHOTOS.COM
When alternative media coverage of black-on-white violence began to move past niggling at the public consciousness and into conventional wisdom, the mainstream media reacted with breakneck speed.

Move along… nothing to see here. It’s a hoax. So said those bastions of truth like The New York TimesThe Daily Beast and Slate.

The “knockout game” is a myth, the MSM tell us.

Who says? Why, the police departments of course.

But police chiefs have a vested interest in hiding crime. High crime makes them look bad. Besides, police officers are trained liars. Who else?

Local media. They rarely tell you the race of the victims and attackers. They don’t want to appear racist, you know. Shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and local chapters of the NAACP will call for boycotts of their advertisers.

Those attacks are just random assaults, not part of a trend, they say. Aren’t the media and police clever?

Yes, they’re random attacks. Random attacks are up .7 percent across the country. That’s not a trend?

Black youths are attacking non-blacks who they happen upon rather than targeting a specific individual and stalking him. But they set out to find someone not black – anyone — to attack. It’s usually someone alone and inattentive. That’s the definition of a random attack.

It has several names in addition to the “knockout game.” It’s called “one hitter quitter” and “polar bear hunting.” Black youths think it’s funny. Think it’s macho.

It’s real and it’s sometimes deadly. Colin Flaherty is the author of White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America, in which he’s documented hundreds of these attacks. Now he hears about them almost every day. They come from across the country. Here are his top 100. He reports more almost every day.

Black-on-white attacks are increasing in frequency. Black flash mob robberies are likewise increasing. The MSM don’t want you to know. Police don’t want you to know.

Official black unemployment is 13.1 percent. For black youths 16 to 19 years old, official unemployment is 36 percent. Real unemployment for black youths is higher still.

The growing lawlessness is evidence of a society in collapse. That is the reality the MSM is trying to gloss over.
Op-ed: 
Slapping the face of the Catholic Church and the Holy Father 
By: Diane Sori

Everyone knows that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NO Christian for his actions tell the true story while his words speak of nothing but lies.

And everyone knows about his disdain for Israel and the Jewish people…good muslim that he is…as once again his actions NOT his words tell the story…like his most recent action being the sellout of Israel in favor of our and Israel’s enemy, Iran. But now he has gone even a step further as he’s turned his disdain towards the Roman Catholic Church.

In a move possibly in retaliation against the Church for opposing his re-election, for standing strong for traditional marriage, for speaking out for religious freedom, and for opposing ObamaCare with its pro-abortion stance, Barack HUSSEIN Obama has ordered our current stand-alone U.S. Embassy to the Vatican…the seat of government for the Catholic Church…to be closed in late 2014 or early 2015, and have the offices for the Ambassador to the Vatican moved into much smaller offices on the grounds of the larger U.S. Embassy Compound where the U.S. Embassy in Italy and the U.S. Mission to the U(selss) N(ations) is currently located.

After establishing direct diplomatic relations to the Holy See almost three decades ago, this move is seen as a slap in the face to both the Holy Father (the Pope) and the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics as it involves yet more of Obama’s lies. Lie one being that the move is for security reasons as the current location is NO longer safe in light of what happened last year in Benghazi…and the other lie being that re-locating the staff’s offices to the compound’s administrative support building will save we taxpayers money.

Lies...for when was the last time you heard of muslim terrorists wreaking havoc or compromising security anywhere near the Vatican…which by the way is probably one of the most secure places in the world…and why in the scope of the amount of money this administration has spent would a paltry $1.4 million a year in rent and operating costs for the current embassy matter when over $4 BILLION of our taxpayer dollars will be given to Iran in the recently agreed to relaxation of the sanctions currently in place against them, and let’s NOT forget the half a BILLION+ dollars wasted on the non-working ObamaCare website.

Former U.S. Ambassador James Nicholson summed it up pretty well when he said, “It’s a massive downgrade of U.S.-Vatican ties..It’s turning this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy. The Holy See is a pivot point for international affairs and a major listening post for the United States, and …[it’s] an insult to American Catholics and to the Vatican.”

And how right he is as there is NO diplomatic or political benefit to anyone whatsoever to justify moving our existing embassy on Aventine Hill, which has been the home of the U.S. mission to the Vatican since 1994. And being that the Vatican acts as a go-between with many nations…especially important now with the mass killings of Catholics and Christians in the Middle East and in Africa… this move at this time sends a message from Barack HUSSEIN Obama to the Holy Father…a message that the Roman Catholic Church be damned…that the diplomatic post doesn’t matter…’off to an annex you go’…as he rubs this nothing but a political payback move into the faces of those who believe.

And all this courtesy of the man who has now given the rogue regime in Iran legitimacy, and who shares his hatred for any and all but the followers of islam…courtesy of the man who looks away as Iran will do anything and everything but actually stop their nuclear weapons quest in hopes of wiping Israel off the map.

And turning his ire against the Catholic Church probably makes some sort of warped sense in Obama’s mind as the Jews he hates and the Catholics he hates are forever joined together in their shared belief in the one true living God, in the fact that Catholicism sprang from Judaism, in the fact that Catholics are some of the biggest supporters of Israel.

Now add in that Obama announcing this move in the very same week as he agreed to that nefarious deal with Iran, and it becomes obvious this is NO coincidence in timing for we just passed the 50th anniversary of the assassination of our country’s first Roman Catholic President…John Fitzgerald Kennedy. This opens healed over wounds for remember, diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican were NOT always as cordial as they are today (until Obama that is) because of the anti-Catholic sentiments…which went hand-in-hand with the anti-Semitism of that day…before and for some time after JFK took the oath of office. It wasn’t until 1984 that our beloved Ronald Reagan appointed William A.Wilson as the first US Ambassador to the Holy See thus giving formal recognition by the US of the Vatican City/State as its own country. So, by moving the embassy, Obama is sending a message to the Vatican…to the Holy Father…about how he feels about its legitimacy…as in NOT much.

So calculatingly and purposefully Barack HUSSEIN Obama shows that like the state of Israel he also has NO use for the Catholic Church or for the Holy Father for minimizing the importance of this post by moving it to a shared compound minimizes respect for the Holy Father himself…but that is his goal for after all he hates Catholics and all they stand for and believe in as much as he hates Jews... good muslim that he is.