May 21, 2012
FSM HOT TOPICS
Exclusive – Oval Office Watch – Monday, April 5
by OVAL OFFICE WATCH April 5, 2010
N.Y. Times columnist Paul Krugman: Death panels will save 'a lot of money.' SEE HERE.
Did a "Clown Posse" try to disrupt NV. Tea Party? - GO HERE.
No 'Free Speech' for You? - HERE.
A long way from Selma: ObamaCare vs. civil-rights struggle
Rich Lowry, NY Post.com
A victory as transcendent as that of the civil-rights movement in the 1960s is a rare and marvelous thing. It's understandable that liberals want to wrap health-care reform in garments ripped off from that glorious movement.
When black congressmen were allegedly abused by a crowd of tea-party protesters outside of the US Capitol, Democrats harkened back to the outrages of the 1960s. When President Obama made his final push for the bill, he invoked historic civil-rights legislation. When Democrats celebrate the bill, they put it in the context of the civil-rights era's expansion of freedoms. And when they denounce the bill's opponents, they compare them to segregationists.
Democrats view the fight for health-care reform through the prism of classic black-and-white civil-rights footage, with a background track of freedom songs. In an homage to those days, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marched arm-in-arm with other congressional leaders into the Capitol the day of the vote. To paraphrase Marx, this is history repeating itself, first as triumph, then as tinny echo.
One of the congressmen who says he was called names outside the Capitol is civil-rights hero John Lewis (although no videos captured anything untoward). That guaranteed comparisons with the famous 1965 march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., in which Lewis was badly beaten. The congressman made one himself, saying he hadn't "heard anything like this in 40, 45 years. Since the march to Selma, really."
Had the Selma march only encountered a few stray epithets, it wouldn't be known as "Bloody Sunday." But marchers were trampled, gassed and attacked with truncheons -- by the police. It takes a clinical lack of proportion to draw a parallel between a mass beating of peaceful protesters and some repulsive cretins shouting racial slurs. Read article.
Your Medical Records Aren't Secure
Deborah Peel, WSJ.com
I learned about the lack of health privacy when I hung out my shingle as a psychiatrist. Patients asked if I could keep their records private if they paid for care themselves. They had lost jobs or reputations because what they said in the doctor's office didn't always stay in the doctor's office. That was 35 years ago, in the age of paper. In today's digital world the problem has only grown worse.
A patient's sensitive information should not be shared without his consent. But this is not the case now, as the country moves toward a system of electronic medical records.
In 2002, under President George W. Bush, the right of a patient to control his most sensitive personal data—from prescriptions to DNA—was eliminated by federal regulators implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Those privacy notices you sign in doctors' offices do not actually give you any control over your personal data; they merely describe how the data will be used and disclosed.
In a January 2009 speech, President Barack Obama said that his administration wants every American to have an electronic health record by 2014, and last year's stimulus bill allocated over $36 billion to build electronic record systems. Meanwhile, the Senate health-care bill just approved by the House of Representatives on Sunday requires certain kinds of research and reporting to be done using electronic health records. Electronic records, Mr. Obama said in his 2009 speech, "will cut waste, eliminate red tape and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests [and] save lives by reducing the deadly but preventable medical errors that pervade our health-care system."
But electronic medical records won't accomplish any of these goals if patients fear sharing information with doctors because they know it isn't private. When patients realize they can't control who sees their electronic health records, they will be far less likely to tell their doctors about drinking problems, feelings of depression, sexual problems, or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases. Read article.
Changing the health care game
William G. Shipman, WashingtonTimes.com
Our yearlong health care debate has exposed some truths that have provided one more reason to conclude that the federal government's finances are out of control. There is too much debt; taxes and spending are too high; and there is no projected end to budget deficits.
In addition, politicians of both parties, over many decades, have made entitlement promises - such as Social Security and Medicare - that cannot be honored. They have borrowed so much from foreign creditors that heretofore sovereign decisions may be influenced by such creditors. Their entitlement promises will burden us with ever-increasing payroll taxes. They have added new tax rules and levies that make the tax code unintelligible. And they have created federal programs that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people") intended to prohibit.
If America wishes to change this trajectory, it needs new and bold thinking. Here is one candidate: Repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (ratified Feb. 3, 1913) which gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, and replace it with an amendment that requires each state to remit to the federal government a certain percent of its tax revenue. This would change the game. Here's why: Read article.
The White House War Against Israel
Edward Alexander, FrontPageMag.com
The decision of the Obama White House to pick a public fight with Israel over its interior ministry’s fairly routine announcement of progress towards approval of the construction (some years from now) of apartments in northeast Jerusalem has by now been subjected to sharp and justified criticism for its disproportionality; its bad faith in reneging on signed agreements with Israel; its mean-spirited spitefulness; its dogged attachment to the exploded assumption that “settlements” are the cause of Arab intransigence; its desire to keep intact the possibility of an apartheid state of Palestine that would not accommodate a single Jew; and its entire indifference to the violence that its reckless statements could (and did) incite in Jerusalem.
But there is a more sinister aspect to the relentless expressions of “insult” and “offense” coming from Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House advisor David Axelrod. It is the invocation, undoubtedly originating in the Oval Office itself, of a long-recognized trope of anti-Semitism, a lethal mixture of the ancient blood libel and the modern conspiracy libel.
Already in July 2009, long before the current ruckus, President Obama told Jewish leaders at a White House meeting that he wanted to “change the way the Arabs see us” by putting “space” between the U. S. and Israel. More recently Biden, according to several reports, told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that
“What you’re doing here [i.e., building houses for Jews in “settlements”] undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”
In other words, Biden was accusing Israel of being responsible for the shedding of American blood, the loss of American lives. Read article.
Middle East Cage Match: Bibi or Barry?
James Lewis, Pajamas Media.com
Was Winston Churchill “in real trouble” when he took over from Neville Chamberlain in 1940 after war had broken out? Not at all — the English supported Churchill because they could see no alternative to war. Churchill projected strength, and that is what they needed most of all. It was Chamberlain who had to resign as prime minister and apologize in public for his failed appeasement policy. Chamberlain was in trouble, not Churchill.
This week the pundits seem to have decided all together that Benyamin Netanyahu is in real trouble today, supposedly because Barack Obama has “humiliated him” and put him in a double bind. It ain’t so, and the attempt by leftoids to portray Netanyahu as “humiliated” is nonsense.
Yes, Obama, in his usual subtle fashion, attempted to humiliate Netanyahu. But Obama is also an expert liar and faker, who believes that “the appearance of power” is power. It’s all by the book, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
This whole media narrative is nonsense, for any number of reasons. Here are just some.
1. Humiliation?
Someone can spit in my face to try to humiliate me. Whether I am therefore humbled and shamed — actually humiliated — as a result of that is up to me. Netanyahu comes from a people who thugs and gangsters have attempted to humiliate since the first millennium BCE. Egyptian slavery is humiliation, but it became part of the defining narrative of the Jews. In the Hebrew Bible every single imperial power in the neighborhood invades the land of Israel and the land of Judah. They still keep their identity — and they are not really as peaceful as they’re sometimes cracked up to be. The dynamic of humiliation by an enemy followed by fierce resistance is pretty much coded in their biblical genes. Read article.
Obama’s Secret Plan For Middle East?
Bruce Kesler, Maggie's Farm.com
Why believe in a conspiracy when stupidity is explanation enough? With that at the front of my mind as a major caveat to my, and others’ conjecture, aside from not knowing what is going on in the privacy of White House meetings, there may actually be a secret purposeful plan behind President Obama’s public undermining of Israel.
Stupidity isn’t enough of an explanation:
First off, there’s every reason to believe Obama’s pledge to be a “transformative” president. Nearly every policy, law and appointment from him and his allies have been distinctly left of those from previous Democrat and Republican administrations.
Second, there’s every reason to believe that Obama and his counsels are aware, how can they not be, of the past refusals by Palestinian leaders to accept offerings, to obstruct negotiations, to foment violence, to foster corruption, to be divided between the violently hostile and the very violently hostile, and that repeated and continuous Israeli concessions and withdrawals have encouraged more of the same from the Palestinians.
Third, there’s every reason to believe that Obama and his advisors are aware of Iran’s impending nuclear status (even the IAEA has finally publicly woken up) and that other MidEast nations are accommodating themselves to Iran, they seeing little likelihood that the US will push for severe enough sanctions in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition and European profits or the US striking Iran’s nuclear installations. Read article.
A spy unsettles US-India ties
M K Bhadrakumar, Asia Times.com
News that the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had reached a plea bargain with David Coleman Headley, David Coleman Headley, formerly known as Daood Sayed Gilani, (born June 30, 1960 who played a key role in the planning of the terrorist strike in Mumbai in November 2008 in which 166 people were killed, has caused an uproar in India.
The deal enables the US government to hold back from formally producing any evidence against Headley in a court of law that might have included details of his links with US intelligence or oblige any cross-examination of Headley by the prosecution.
Nor can the families of the 166 victims be represented by a lawyer to question Headley during his trial commencing in Chicago. Headley's links with the US intelligence will now remain classified
information and the Pakistani nationals involved in the Mumbai attacks will get away scot-free. Furthermore, the FBI will not allow Headley's extradition to India and will restrict access so that Indian agencies cannot interrogate him regarding his links with US and Pakistani intelligence.
In return for pleading guilty to the charges against him Headley will get lighter punishment than the death sentence that was probably most likely.
Headley's arrest in Chicago last October initially seemed a breakthrough in throwing light on the operations and activities of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Pakistan-based terrorist organization, in India. But instead the Obama administration's frantic efforts to cover up the details of the case have been taken to their logical conclusion.
The plea bargain raises explosive questions. The LeT began planning the attack on Mumbai sometime around September 2006. According to the plea bargain, Headley paid five visits to India on reconnaissance missions between 2006 and the November 2008 strike, each time returning to the US via Pakistan where he met "with various co-conspirators, including but not limited to members of LeT".
The plea bargain simply refers to the Pakistani handlers of Headley as A, B, C and D. But who are they? We will never know. Read article.
Are Democrats Really On Board With The Obama Agenda?
Austin Hill, Townhall.com
What happens when left-wing ideologues co-opt the nation’s legislative agenda, and use surreptitious means of forcing that agenda through Congress?
Ask Bart Stupak. He’s the self-described “pro-life Democrat” Congressman from Michigan who appears to have “sold” his vote on Obamacare in exchange for less than a million dollars in airport building funds.
The agenda from the White House and the congressional leadership is horrible, yet Stupak’s response to it has been equally as bad. And now, the name Bart Stupak has become synonymous with the words “Judas” and “betrayal,” in the minds of millions (his distinguished “Defender Of Life” award that he eagerly accepted previously from a prominent pro-life organization was stripped from him this past week), as he faces both a primary election challenge from another Democrat, and multiple Republican challengers in the general election cycle.
You can also pose the “what happens when?” question to Walt Minnick, the lone Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Idaho (the state that was first to sue the U.S. federal government over Obamacare). Congressman Minnick voted “no” on Obamacare twice. He voted “no” on President Obama’s bank-busting “economic stimulus bill.” And by every indication, Minnick hasn’t “sold a vote” or allowed himself to be swayed or manipulated by Barack Obama at all.
Still, Congressman Minnick faces the wrath of constituents in his home state. And this, at least in part, is what happens when left-wing ideologues co-opt the nation’s legislative agenda.
Congressman Minnick joined me on my talk show at Boise, Idaho’s 580 KIDO radio last week, and his remarks were substantive, and sobering. In fact, the remarks made by this “Democrat” in the U.S. House of Representatives make even more sense, if you know some things about the man. Read article.
So, You Still Want to Close Gitmo? Judge’s order to release 9/11 jihadist is a sign of things to come.
Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO.com
Mohamedou Slahi is responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans. He was a core member of the 9/11 conspiracy — the recruiter of Mohamed Atta and the other ringleaders. If he’d had his druthers, even more Americans would have been killed: He is almost certainly the al-Qaeda middle manager who activated the Canadian cell that attempted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. On the scale of war criminals, he edges toward the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed range, as bad as it gets.
A federal judge has ordered that he be released.
Cassandra did not like being Cassandra. It is not enjoyable to foresee avoidable catastrophes again and again (and again and again and again) only to watch as no remedial measures are taken and disaster strikes. To repeat: The courts are institutionally incompetent when it comes to matters of national security, particularly the prosecution of war.
The Framers intended it that way. National-security decisions are the most important ones a political community makes, so our system of government was designed to have them made by the political branches — by those who answer to the voters, to the people whose lives are at stake. When the political branches abdicate this first responsibility of government, sitting by as it is usurped by politically insulated judges, they deny us the freedom to decide for ourselves what our security requires. We are then the subjects of judges rather than masters of our own destiny.
The courts, moreover, are the worst institution to which we could surrender this authority. Not only are we powerless to vote them out if they get national-defense matters wrong, they are guaranteed to get them wrong. This is not because judges are bad people; it is because they have no responsibility for protecting the country. Read article.
Join FSM and stay informed. Get your daily Security Update delivered each day to your e-mail.
Occupy Chicago freakout: The LRAD is coming, the LRAD is coming!
May 21, 2012 00:57 AM
Here is an LRAD. It’s a Long Range Acoustic Device better known as a sound cannon and it’s used to disperse unruly crowds. Here is an Occupy Chicago freakout over the LRAD (led by the same livestreamer who freaked out last night over a brief police stop): Two #LRAD s spotted heading to march.— Tim [...]
Michael Moore spreads hysterical, anti-police fable from his Occupy comrades
May 21, 2012 00:37 AM
The crockumentary film-maker should have read Twitchy first. As we told you Saturday night, the trio of Occupy Chicago livestreamers who freaked out over a brief, Chicago police pullover didn’t have their apartment raided, didn’t have any of their equipment damaged, were not “held at gunpoint,” and had none of their high-priced cameras, phones, and [...]
It will rain: Awww, Occupy Chicago's all wet; finally, free showers for all!
May 20, 2012 11:09 PM
Mother Nature is Chicago law enforcement’s best friend. Tonight, the rabble-rousers’ plans for anarchy got spoiled by rain. Twitter had fun as the Occupiers and their fearless livestream crews ran for cover, while a few of the mobsters hung around to harass officers on duty and break out in senseless chants: Fkin Streamers afraid of [...]
Marion Barry has change of heart after being saved by Filipino hospital staff
May 20, 2012 10:00 PM
In what reads like a bad Hollywood movie script Marion Barry has changed his mind about Filipino nurses. Just a few weeks after complaining about how many Filipino nurses work in Washington DC Barry's life was saved by Filipino nurses. That's right, the same people he wanted to push our of DC hospitals ended up treating his potentially life threatening blood clot.
May 20, 2012 06:15 PM
Violence erupts at the end of the NATO Summit protests. Earlier today, members of Black Bloc were arrested for plotting to attack police stations, Mayor Emanuel's home and President Obama's campaign headquarters. Their violence then turned to the protest; police in riot gear move in, wearing gas masks. Protesters are throwing things at police according to video, live photos and reports from on the ground in Chicago.
FSM Archives
blog comments powered by Disqus