Just horrible ... my prayers for the families of those killed and wounded.
A spectacular failure by the military hierarchy which seems to have ignored many warnings concerning the shooter. Is the Pentagon to PC ?
Obama: "Let's not jump to any conclusions ...."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/lt-colonel-allen-west-tells-it-straight-on-fort-hood-jihad-the-worst-islamic-terror-attack-since-911.html
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/major-muslims-dawah-before-jihad.html
Mr. President, Is It Getting Any Better as the Answers Come In? [Andy McCarthy]
President Obama today in the Rose Garden, speaking about the Muslim mass-murderer who killed many more Americans yesterday than were killed by the Muslim mass-murderers who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993: "We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."
So, at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Steve Emerson marshals some of the answers that have come in about Nidal Malik Hasan: "Born in Virginia, sent to medical school by the U.S. Army, the psychiatrist was chastised for proselytizing to his patients about Islam. Asked his nationality, he didn't identify himself as an American but as a Palestinian. He appeared pleased by the shooting death of a Little Rock Army recruiter in June and reportedly was heard saying, 'maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.' In the fateful moment before he opened fire on his unarmed victims, he shouted Allahu Akhbar!'"
President Obama has had no problems jumping to conclusions about everything from the stimulus (it was going to keep unemployment below 8 percent) to Honduras (the administration pronounced it a lawless coup when, as the answers came in, it was shown to be the opposite of that). In fact, based on what it acknowledged was no "specific information," his Homeland Security Department concluded that the country was about to experience a surge of violence from "rightwing extremists." I don't know what further answers the president is going to need here, but it seems some pretty obvious conclusions are in order.
By the way, as Steve points out, CAIR has also weighed in. They say . . . we don't know all the answers yet and we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Shooting Raises Fears For Sanity Of Entire Western World [Mark Steyn]
The Headline of the Day, from the BBC:
Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army
Really? Right now the body count stands at:
Non-Muslims 13
Muslims 0
I was reading from some of this kind of coverage on the Rush Limbaugh show today. Even if you are concerned that it would be terribly unfair if all Muslims were to be tarred by Major Hasan's brush, it is, to put it at its mildest, the grossest bad taste to default every single time within minutes to the position that what's of most interest about an actual actrocity with real victims is that it may provoke an entirely hypothetical atrocity with entirely hypothetical victims.
I refer you yet again to this note-perfect parody:
British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing
This kind of media coverage is really a form of mental illness far more advanced than whatever Major Hasan's lawyers eventually enter in mitigation, and apparently pandemic, at least among the western media.
On a related note, from David Horowitz: "Is everybody out of their mind?"
Bonus: "We're the ones who love death - our own."
Are All Religions Equally Violent? [Michael Rubin]
Regarding the ongoing discussion of Islam's role in terrorists' justification of their actions in general and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's self-justification in particular, there's a tendency among the government, academics, and the media to engage in religious equivalency and suggest that Islamic extremism is really no different than Jewish and Christian extremism.
To counter such notions, Raymond Ibrahim's article, "Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?," is certainly worth a weekend read.
An Intelligent Voice on Ft. Hood [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Check out Thomas Kenniff's Q&A with Washington Post readers.
Obama's Aloofness [Jonah Goldberg]
Yesterday when the Fort Hood news was breaking, at least a couple of the networks broke to President Obama's remarks at the Tribal Nations Conference, expecting a statement from Obama on the shootings. What they saw for a few long, uncomfortable, minutes was Obama making routine political introductions and pandering to his audience.
Here's how Robert A. George puts it:
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and, inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.
Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.
Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on — and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.
I don't know. I'm about 3/5ths with Robert on this. I agree it was horribly disconnected from the drama of the moment and Obama didn't help himself. Indeed, this is one of the areas — emoting and empathy — where the Obama White House's vaunted communications operation has a real blindspot. Moreover, I think the White House's blind spot reflects Obama's own deficiencies. He really is a bit of a cold fish. His eulogy for Ted Kennedy, for example, showed that he lacks the ability — so common in politicians — to fake a certain kind of lachrymose sincerity plausibly. This shortcoming is not necessarily a bad thing in my book, but in Obama's case it can become a liability, particularly in cases like this because it can feed other negative perceptions of the man.
Still, this incident seems like just one of the perils of the presidency in the media age. I can't quite recall an example, but I'm sure that president Bush had similar moments when the cameras got to him in politician-mode during a national crisis.
Last year, when McCain halted his campaign to deal with the financial crisis, Obama said presidents need to be able to do a lot of things at once. He was right. I can give Obama a pass on this one, but I also think there might be a trend in the making.
9/11 v. Fort Hood [Jonah Goldberg]
In response to my post on Obama's aloofness, a lot of email like this:
Surely you recall the media making hay of Bush reading abook to some group of small children on Sept. 11, chastisinghim for "going on reading while the US was being attacked"among other things. Wanna bet the same spin is put onObama's meeting with AmerIndians during an attack on USsoldiers?
Yeah, me either.
And:
How about when Bush was informed of the WTC strikes on 9/11, and he finished reading to the children? I believe the left and the media were pretty hard on him for this.
I think this is an absolutely fair point about the shabby double standards of the press and left. But I always thought Bush's response was fine. It was also very different than Obama's, at least as I understand it. Obama was briefed on the shooting before he went out. He opted to do the schmoozy stuff. Bush was presented with staggering news and kept his cool. Not that these readers disagree, but this example works in Bush's favor and against Obama. And it makes a lot of Bush's critics look even worse for politicizing that moment on 9/11.
Update: From a reader:
I've never understood the 'scandal' of George W. Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment. He was in a room full of small children. What was he supposed to do? Break down sobbing and scream 'we're all going to die'? He spared the kids unnecessary trauma, and the couple minutes spent finishing the story didn't really count for anything in the long run. In short, he acted like an ADULT. Obama's response was bizarre. He was speaking to a group of adults, many of whom probably already knew about the shooting. He seems to have no idea what constitutes a 'big' event or a 'presidential' response. It's like we have a 14 year old running the country, and while Joe Biden is OLD, he's not mature enough to reign Obama in..... It's going to be a loooooooong couple of years, IMO......
Contrasting W's Reaction to 9/11 and The One's to Ft. Hood [Andy McCarthy]
An interesting column at Newsmax by our pal Frank Gaffney on the "politician-in-chief."
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Perfect Example of phony jobs being "created or saved" claimed by Obama
This about sums the pure BS hypocrisy out of DC, don't you think ?
Chicago Math [Jonah Goldberg]
Hey 9 out of 5 ain't bad.
AP: "WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there."
Chicago Math [Jonah Goldberg]
Hey 9 out of 5 ain't bad.
AP: "WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Election Day 2009: No Obama Magic; only more golf
Some good reads on the Democratic trouncings yesterday; in part due to disenchantment with Obama, his agenda, and that of the Democrats ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_obama_magic_has_faded_j5hVLRcxiqTHWberCV1DrK
And — until it started looking as if they might lose — the Obama people were suggesting that these races would seal their mandate and encourage congressional wafflers to toe the line on health-care reform. Not so much, as it turns out.
In fact, the elections underscored Obama’s political weakness just one year after his triumphant victory over Republican moderate John McCain.
The Obama invincibility that was so much in evidence then seems to have lost its power. People can argue the reasons why these elections, all in places Obama carried handily, were so close. But if he were the political marvel he was thought to be, these races wouldn’t have been contests, but walkovers. So one consequence of this Election Day is the end of his special political magic.
That’s no surprise — as that magic was a largely substanceless froth whipped up by campaign consultants and compliant big-media cheerleaders.
The truth is, Obama wasn’t ready to be president when he ran in 2008. When he started, he probably thought he had no real chance — he himself admitted upon entering the Senate that he wasn’t qualified to be president — and that his first run would simply be a PR effort that would lift him to the top ranks of Senate Democrats.
When, to everyone’s surprise, resentment of the Clinton machine crystallized around him, he wound up beating Hillary for the nomination, and found himself riding an out-of-control express train. He rode it to victory, with some help from erratic McCain actions.
But he was right the first time about not being ready for the Oval Office. As president, he seems confused and a bit distant on the issues, leaving the details to congressional Democrats and an ever-growing number of "czars" while he golfs and launches attacks at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
With the economy tanking (unemployment is much worse after Obama’s deficit-swelling stimulus than Obama’s advisers predicted it would be with no stimulus at all), with the promised post-partisanship dissolving into witch-hunts against hostile media and the promised post-racial America devolving into the awkwardly staged "beer summit," with the "necessary war" in Afghanistan the subject of endless dithering and the promised "smart diplomacy" materializing as a series of awkward missteps by Hillary Clinton, the froth has become a lot less frothy.
Republicans, who were prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt a year ago, now can’t stand him. Independents who voted for him are deserting in droves. And Democrats don’t seem that happy either.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/audacity_of_nope_cGAqdIdSBSd47F3x0Y1JbI
Don't be suckered by the reverse hype. This was a dreadful night for the president and his party -- and an unmistakable signal that voters are, at the very least, uneasy with Democratic political dominion in the United States.
Obviously, the worst news for the White House came in New Jersey, which has become such a Democratic stronghold over the past decade that nothing -- not a governor's installation of his boyfriend as a homeland-security adviser, not a US senator's sudden withdrawal due to rank corruption, nothing -- could keep the state from going blue.
Now, despite the president's aggressive personal-style campaigning in the last week, New Jersey has thrown an incumbent out of office and installed a Republican in Trenton.
But it's really Virginia that tells the tale. It had been moving steadily into the Democratic column after a generation moving in the other direction. By 2008, it had two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, and its statehouse had gone Democratic as well. Then Barack Obama took the state a year ago, for the first time since Jimmy Carter's victory 32 years earlier.
Last night Virginia snapped violently to the right, with Republicans winning by an astonishing 18 to 20 points in three statewide races. A result of that sort can't be attributed to the fact that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Creigh Deeds, was lackluster.
He was, but he also had the overwhelmingly powerful support of The Washington Post, which got him the nomination and then abandoned any pretense of fairness in its news coverage of the race after that. Even so, in the Virginia counties where the Post holds sway, Deeds could barely even hold his own.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/deathblow_to_obamacare_YSbuCWMLlCet4mv9b421GO
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_obama_magic_has_faded_j5hVLRcxiqTHWberCV1DrK
And — until it started looking as if they might lose — the Obama people were suggesting that these races would seal their mandate and encourage congressional wafflers to toe the line on health-care reform. Not so much, as it turns out.
In fact, the elections underscored Obama’s political weakness just one year after his triumphant victory over Republican moderate John McCain.
The Obama invincibility that was so much in evidence then seems to have lost its power. People can argue the reasons why these elections, all in places Obama carried handily, were so close. But if he were the political marvel he was thought to be, these races wouldn’t have been contests, but walkovers. So one consequence of this Election Day is the end of his special political magic.
That’s no surprise — as that magic was a largely substanceless froth whipped up by campaign consultants and compliant big-media cheerleaders.
The truth is, Obama wasn’t ready to be president when he ran in 2008. When he started, he probably thought he had no real chance — he himself admitted upon entering the Senate that he wasn’t qualified to be president — and that his first run would simply be a PR effort that would lift him to the top ranks of Senate Democrats.
When, to everyone’s surprise, resentment of the Clinton machine crystallized around him, he wound up beating Hillary for the nomination, and found himself riding an out-of-control express train. He rode it to victory, with some help from erratic McCain actions.
But he was right the first time about not being ready for the Oval Office. As president, he seems confused and a bit distant on the issues, leaving the details to congressional Democrats and an ever-growing number of "czars" while he golfs and launches attacks at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
With the economy tanking (unemployment is much worse after Obama’s deficit-swelling stimulus than Obama’s advisers predicted it would be with no stimulus at all), with the promised post-partisanship dissolving into witch-hunts against hostile media and the promised post-racial America devolving into the awkwardly staged "beer summit," with the "necessary war" in Afghanistan the subject of endless dithering and the promised "smart diplomacy" materializing as a series of awkward missteps by Hillary Clinton, the froth has become a lot less frothy.
Republicans, who were prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt a year ago, now can’t stand him. Independents who voted for him are deserting in droves. And Democrats don’t seem that happy either.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/audacity_of_nope_cGAqdIdSBSd47F3x0Y1JbI
Don't be suckered by the reverse hype. This was a dreadful night for the president and his party -- and an unmistakable signal that voters are, at the very least, uneasy with Democratic political dominion in the United States.
Obviously, the worst news for the White House came in New Jersey, which has become such a Democratic stronghold over the past decade that nothing -- not a governor's installation of his boyfriend as a homeland-security adviser, not a US senator's sudden withdrawal due to rank corruption, nothing -- could keep the state from going blue.
Now, despite the president's aggressive personal-style campaigning in the last week, New Jersey has thrown an incumbent out of office and installed a Republican in Trenton.
But it's really Virginia that tells the tale. It had been moving steadily into the Democratic column after a generation moving in the other direction. By 2008, it had two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, and its statehouse had gone Democratic as well. Then Barack Obama took the state a year ago, for the first time since Jimmy Carter's victory 32 years earlier.
Last night Virginia snapped violently to the right, with Republicans winning by an astonishing 18 to 20 points in three statewide races. A result of that sort can't be attributed to the fact that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Creigh Deeds, was lackluster.
He was, but he also had the overwhelmingly powerful support of The Washington Post, which got him the nomination and then abandoned any pretense of fairness in its news coverage of the race after that. Even so, in the Virginia counties where the Post holds sway, Deeds could barely even hold his own.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/deathblow_to_obamacare_YSbuCWMLlCet4mv9b421GO
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Obama -- just too busy
Rich Lowry skewers Obama regarding the Fall of the Berlin Wall commemoration ..
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_busy_for_liberty_48RthxBNnyB2Mq28wWNGDO
In his first year in office, Bar ack Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president. He has touched ground in 16 countries, easily outpacing Bill Clinton (three) and George W. Bush (11). It's an itinerary befitting a "citizen of the world."
But there's one stop Obama won't make: He has begged off going to Berlin next week to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. His schedule is reportedly too crowded.
John F. Kennedy famously told Berliners, "Ich bin ein Berliner." On the 20th anniversary of the last century's most stirring triumph of freedom, Obama is telling them, "Ich bin beschäftigt" -- i.e., "I'm busy."
JFK: Made the time to promote freedom.
It doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
Obama's failure to go to Berlin is the most telling non-event of his presidency. It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion. Only Obama -- with his dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking and his attenuated commitment to America's exceptional role in the world -- would spurn German President Angela Merkel's invitation to attend. Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_busy_for_liberty_48RthxBNnyB2Mq28wWNGDO#ixzz0Vqr0lVRV
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_busy_for_liberty_48RthxBNnyB2Mq28wWNGDO
In his first year in office, Bar ack Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president. He has touched ground in 16 countries, easily outpacing Bill Clinton (three) and George W. Bush (11). It's an itinerary befitting a "citizen of the world."
But there's one stop Obama won't make: He has begged off going to Berlin next week to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. His schedule is reportedly too crowded.
John F. Kennedy famously told Berliners, "Ich bin ein Berliner." On the 20th anniversary of the last century's most stirring triumph of freedom, Obama is telling them, "Ich bin beschäftigt" -- i.e., "I'm busy."
JFK: Made the time to promote freedom.
It doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
Obama's failure to go to Berlin is the most telling non-event of his presidency. It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion. Only Obama -- with his dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking and his attenuated commitment to America's exceptional role in the world -- would spurn German President Angela Merkel's invitation to attend. Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_busy_for_liberty_48RthxBNnyB2Mq28wWNGDO#ixzz0Vqr0lVRV
V - Universal Healthcare for All !
And w/out the budget deficits !
ABC presents V ... reptilian aliens who offer syrupy slogans, hope and universal healthcare for all of us earthlings ! What are they trying to tell us - LOL !!
V v O [Jonah Goldberg]
Yes, yes, yes: I will be watching V. I might have to record it and watch election returns (so please no emailed spoilers). As many, many readers have noted the Visitors seem to share much of Barack Obama's agenda. We bring you free healthcare! We bring you hope and change! But in reality they're a bunch of thugs from Planet Chicago.
The comparisons are pretty obvious.
What surprised is that Tom Shales Hank Stuever sorta-kinda sees them too:
There are some twisted little microbes living in the algorithms of the television programming grid, which might explain the delicious scheduling of "V" and "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama" back-to-back on different networks Tuesday night. It's a nice night of hope, change and delayed ironies — if you watch both with a suspicious mind.
You can dive into the paranoid, things-are-not-at-all-what-they-seem world of "V," ABC's exciting new science-fiction drama, and then, after a quick potty break, hop over to "By the People," HBO's uplifting but stultifyingly naive, please-drink-a-little-more-Kool-Aid paean to the historical highlights of President Obama's campaign and election.The telltale alien behavior is everywhere. In "V" (a remake of the early-1980s series), the otherworldly "visitors" want to bring us universal health care. They possess a knack for speechwriting and managing the message. In "By the People," well . . . same thing! It's all about happy people flying in from strange places, smiling at complicitly available TV cameras.
Update: CORRECTION! Woops. Sorry, I made a big goof. It wasn't Shales, but Hank Stuever who wrote the review. I was looking at the paper version and Shales' name is in bold at the bottom of the page and it must have stuck in my head. My apologies. Serves me right not to huff glue this early in the morning.
ABC presents V ... reptilian aliens who offer syrupy slogans, hope and universal healthcare for all of us earthlings ! What are they trying to tell us - LOL !!
V v O [Jonah Goldberg]
Yes, yes, yes: I will be watching V. I might have to record it and watch election returns (so please no emailed spoilers). As many, many readers have noted the Visitors seem to share much of Barack Obama's agenda. We bring you free healthcare! We bring you hope and change! But in reality they're a bunch of thugs from Planet Chicago.
The comparisons are pretty obvious.
What surprised is that Tom Shales Hank Stuever sorta-kinda sees them too:
There are some twisted little microbes living in the algorithms of the television programming grid, which might explain the delicious scheduling of "V" and "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama" back-to-back on different networks Tuesday night. It's a nice night of hope, change and delayed ironies — if you watch both with a suspicious mind.
You can dive into the paranoid, things-are-not-at-all-what-they-seem world of "V," ABC's exciting new science-fiction drama, and then, after a quick potty break, hop over to "By the People," HBO's uplifting but stultifyingly naive, please-drink-a-little-more-Kool-Aid paean to the historical highlights of President Obama's campaign and election.The telltale alien behavior is everywhere. In "V" (a remake of the early-1980s series), the otherworldly "visitors" want to bring us universal health care. They possess a knack for speechwriting and managing the message. In "By the People," well . . . same thing! It's all about happy people flying in from strange places, smiling at complicitly available TV cameras.
Update: CORRECTION! Woops. Sorry, I made a big goof. It wasn't Shales, but Hank Stuever who wrote the review. I was looking at the paper version and Shales' name is in bold at the bottom of the page and it must have stuck in my head. My apologies. Serves me right not to huff glue this early in the morning.
ObamaCare update: Reid suggests Not This Year
Not so inevitable as the Obama spin machine would like folks to believe. Americans just don't want another crap sandwich forced down their throats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5513630.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5513630.shtml
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Is This What ObamaCare has in store for us ?
Canadian Death Panel Strikes Again [Wesley J. Smith]
The Globe and Mail reports a terrible story today about two women with incurabable pulmonary disease being denied pescribed drugs based on cost. One is now near death:
Bonnie Cameron and Cindy Waters-Goodman do not know each other, but they have much in common. Both are feisty, small-town Ontarians who were young, busy mothers when hit with diagnoses of pulmonary arterial hypertension, an incurable heart and lung disease. Ms. Cameron's verdict came after the day she felt constantly winded and her legs grew so swollen that she had to scissor off her jeans. A family photographer, Ms. Waters-Goodman found out after a flight of stairs at work rendered her faint, dizzy and slurring her words. Both were started on a regimen of drugs that are costly but slowed the pace of the disease, which is uncommon and often goes undetected. The province paid much of the tab, which the women estimate was about $100,000 a year each. Their lives improved drastically: They could play with their kids, cook meals and shower without fainting.
Then, last spring, out of the blue, both received letters informing them the province would no longer allow more than one medication. To continue receiving support, they'd have to stop taking combos. After much lobbying, Ms. Waters-Goodman won a reprieve and can stay on her combination of drugs for one more year. Ms. Cameron wasn't so lucky. Forced to give up her secondary medication, she has suffered greatly, and this week slipped into critical condition after being moved to hospital in Toronto. With an intravenous line in her neck and several failing organs, she seesaws between life and death.
This is our future if we pass Obamacare and its attendant cost/benefit/best practices panels that will control the delivery of both private and public medicine. No one can say we haven’t been warned.
— Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute. He also consults for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
The Globe and Mail reports a terrible story today about two women with incurabable pulmonary disease being denied pescribed drugs based on cost. One is now near death:
Bonnie Cameron and Cindy Waters-Goodman do not know each other, but they have much in common. Both are feisty, small-town Ontarians who were young, busy mothers when hit with diagnoses of pulmonary arterial hypertension, an incurable heart and lung disease. Ms. Cameron's verdict came after the day she felt constantly winded and her legs grew so swollen that she had to scissor off her jeans. A family photographer, Ms. Waters-Goodman found out after a flight of stairs at work rendered her faint, dizzy and slurring her words. Both were started on a regimen of drugs that are costly but slowed the pace of the disease, which is uncommon and often goes undetected. The province paid much of the tab, which the women estimate was about $100,000 a year each. Their lives improved drastically: They could play with their kids, cook meals and shower without fainting.
Then, last spring, out of the blue, both received letters informing them the province would no longer allow more than one medication. To continue receiving support, they'd have to stop taking combos. After much lobbying, Ms. Waters-Goodman won a reprieve and can stay on her combination of drugs for one more year. Ms. Cameron wasn't so lucky. Forced to give up her secondary medication, she has suffered greatly, and this week slipped into critical condition after being moved to hospital in Toronto. With an intravenous line in her neck and several failing organs, she seesaws between life and death.
This is our future if we pass Obamacare and its attendant cost/benefit/best practices panels that will control the delivery of both private and public medicine. No one can say we haven’t been warned.
— Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute. He also consults for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
Honduras - update
Honduras & U.S. [Otto J. Reich]
My initial concern about the Micheletti-Zelaya accord has been mostly allayed. The first press reports, from the MSM were in error, not surprisingly. (Most U.S. and Latin media have been partial to Zelaya, or uninformed, or both). This may well result in a victory for Honduran democracy and a defeat for Zelaya, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and their supporters. It is also an embarrassing setback for this administration’s diplomacy, which ended accepting a deal it could have accepted several months ago had it not been vetoed by neophytes and ideologues at the White House and NSC.
Contrary to press reports, Zelaya is not in any way automatically returned to office by the accord. First, there must be a vote by the entire Honduran congress on whether Zelaya is fit to return to office. Prior to that, the Honduran supreme court, which ruled against Zelaya in June by a vote of 15 to 0, must issue an opinion on the same.
In other words, Zelaya must pass two big tests which he failed before: a judicial review by the highest court in the land, and approval by the legislature. While Zelaya’s Liberal party has the largest faction in the congress, it is also the party of Micheletti. According to my Honduran sources, there is no way that Zelaya can win a free and transparent ballot. At the present time Zelaya can count on less than 25 percent of the congress. In June, the same legislative body voted 122 to 6 against him. There will doubtless be a battle this time, and the anti-Zelaya forces fear that Hugo Chavez will try to buy votes for Zelaya. They are also concerned that the U.S. government not involve itself in the legislative process, especially U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens, who is widely seen as favoring Zelaya. The accord was facilitated when Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon reportedly promised Micheletti that Llorens will not attempt to influence the vote.
The bigger danger is Chavez, who is not constrained by scruples, decency or financial limits. Chavez will try to put his ally Zelaya back into office, even for a few weeks prior to the transfer of power, and preferably before the presidential election in November, so as to intimidate the opposition and claim a victory of sorts. The U.S. must do al it can to prevent the Venezuelans and their enforcers the Cubans from interfering.
Finally, we must thank the leaders and people of Honduras for having had the courage to resist the undue pressure of the Obama White House. In spite of threats, the cancellation of U.S. economic assistance, revocations of the visas of political and business leaders, and other sanctions previously reserved for our enemies and not for a friend like Honduras, that small country resisted the bullying of the Obama administration.
— Otto J. Reich served President Bush from 2001 to 2004, first as assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere and later in the National Security Council. He now heads his own international government-relations firm in Washington.
My initial concern about the Micheletti-Zelaya accord has been mostly allayed. The first press reports, from the MSM were in error, not surprisingly. (Most U.S. and Latin media have been partial to Zelaya, or uninformed, or both). This may well result in a victory for Honduran democracy and a defeat for Zelaya, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and their supporters. It is also an embarrassing setback for this administration’s diplomacy, which ended accepting a deal it could have accepted several months ago had it not been vetoed by neophytes and ideologues at the White House and NSC.
Contrary to press reports, Zelaya is not in any way automatically returned to office by the accord. First, there must be a vote by the entire Honduran congress on whether Zelaya is fit to return to office. Prior to that, the Honduran supreme court, which ruled against Zelaya in June by a vote of 15 to 0, must issue an opinion on the same.
In other words, Zelaya must pass two big tests which he failed before: a judicial review by the highest court in the land, and approval by the legislature. While Zelaya’s Liberal party has the largest faction in the congress, it is also the party of Micheletti. According to my Honduran sources, there is no way that Zelaya can win a free and transparent ballot. At the present time Zelaya can count on less than 25 percent of the congress. In June, the same legislative body voted 122 to 6 against him. There will doubtless be a battle this time, and the anti-Zelaya forces fear that Hugo Chavez will try to buy votes for Zelaya. They are also concerned that the U.S. government not involve itself in the legislative process, especially U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens, who is widely seen as favoring Zelaya. The accord was facilitated when Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon reportedly promised Micheletti that Llorens will not attempt to influence the vote.
The bigger danger is Chavez, who is not constrained by scruples, decency or financial limits. Chavez will try to put his ally Zelaya back into office, even for a few weeks prior to the transfer of power, and preferably before the presidential election in November, so as to intimidate the opposition and claim a victory of sorts. The U.S. must do al it can to prevent the Venezuelans and their enforcers the Cubans from interfering.
Finally, we must thank the leaders and people of Honduras for having had the courage to resist the undue pressure of the Obama White House. In spite of threats, the cancellation of U.S. economic assistance, revocations of the visas of political and business leaders, and other sanctions previously reserved for our enemies and not for a friend like Honduras, that small country resisted the bullying of the Obama administration.
— Otto J. Reich served President Bush from 2001 to 2004, first as assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere and later in the National Security Council. He now heads his own international government-relations firm in Washington.
Liberal Intolerance -- aka, no-class liberals
oh; those wacky intowerant wiberals:
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/death_to_conservatism.html
Also:
Halloween on Capitol Hill [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
re: Halloween on East Cap Street
A friend e-mailed overnight:
By the time we walked by, the homeowner had added grotesque mannequinsof Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. With a sign saying"Beware Republicans in 2012" or something like that.Still, his display was infinitely less offensive than last year. Thatwas when he suggested Republicans were evil.
From a former Hill mom happy to be back home:
Kathryn, that picture is nothing new to the few Republican families who live on Capitol Hill. I can tell you true horror stories about the welcoming liberals who live up there. A few years back on Halloween one house had a sign up that said “No Candy for Little Republicans.” I once made the mistake of letting my two kids wear “W” shirts I picked up at the 2004 convention. The “W” shirt was a superman shirt but instead of an S in the middle there was a W. My boys loved them since they thought it was Superman. I thought it was pretty subtle. Not for the women at the park. We were accosted by fellow Moms. Insults were thrown not only at my little ones but at me and my parenting abilities. My most favorite was when our car was bumper stickered! Someone actually went into our alley, into our driveway and placed anti-Republican bumper stickers ON our car. We didn’t have any pro-Republican signs up so I have to assume it was one of our very kind neighbors who actually knew us.
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/death_to_conservatism.html
Also:
Halloween on Capitol Hill [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
re: Halloween on East Cap Street
A friend e-mailed overnight:
By the time we walked by, the homeowner had added grotesque mannequinsof Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. With a sign saying"Beware Republicans in 2012" or something like that.Still, his display was infinitely less offensive than last year. Thatwas when he suggested Republicans were evil.
From a former Hill mom happy to be back home:
Kathryn, that picture is nothing new to the few Republican families who live on Capitol Hill. I can tell you true horror stories about the welcoming liberals who live up there. A few years back on Halloween one house had a sign up that said “No Candy for Little Republicans.” I once made the mistake of letting my two kids wear “W” shirts I picked up at the 2004 convention. The “W” shirt was a superman shirt but instead of an S in the middle there was a W. My boys loved them since they thought it was Superman. I thought it was pretty subtle. Not for the women at the park. We were accosted by fellow Moms. Insults were thrown not only at my little ones but at me and my parenting abilities. My most favorite was when our car was bumper stickered! Someone actually went into our alley, into our driveway and placed anti-Republican bumper stickers ON our car. We didn’t have any pro-Republican signs up so I have to assume it was one of our very kind neighbors who actually knew us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
