Viral video and apples to apples

This September 5, 2014 video of President Obama and President Reagan has been in my news feed as of late so I decided to blog about it.

First, the video starts with a heavily edited couple of clips from Obama's August 28, 2014 press briefing.  The author makes a number of dishonest edits.

• He edits out the question that Obama was answering, 
• He makes an edit mid-sentence
• He leaves out most of the answer to the question.  

A heavily edited Obama is only given about 26 seconds to make his case.  The highlighted portions are what the author left in.

Q Do you need Congress’s approval to go into Syria?

THE PRESIDENT: I have consulted with Congress throughout this process. I am confident that as Commander-in-Chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently. As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress. And I do think that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate.

But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet. I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are. And I think that’s not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military as well. We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard. But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.

Cutting off a person in the middle of a sentence is really dishonest.  The person does not get to express their complete idea.  Further the author had to have known what he was doing since he made the edits.  Second, in an internet age, sourcing is easy.  They could have easily provided unedited sources, like I am, but then they would have been caught breaking a sentence in half.

He then provides a clip of Reagan that has parts edited out that he does not think are important.  The heavily edited Reagan section is from his April 14, 1986 address on Libya.

My fellow Americans, at 7 o'clock this evening Eastern time, air and naval forces of the United States launched a series of strikes against the headquarters, terrorist facilities and military assets that support Muammar Qaddafi's subversive activities.

The attacks were concentrated and carefully targeted to minimize casualties among the Libyan people, with whom we have no quarrel.

From initial reports, our forces have succeeded in their mission. Several weeks ago, in New Orleans, I warned Colonel Qaddafi we would hold his regime accountable for any new terrorist attacks launched against American citizens. More recently, I made it clear we would respond as soon as we determined conclusively who was responsible for such attacks.

On April 5 in West Berlin a terrorist bomb exploded in a nightclub frequented by American servicemen. Sgt. Kenneth Ford and a young Turkish woman were killed and 230 others were wounded, among them some 50 American military personnel. Evidence Is Now Conclusive

This monstrous brutality is but the latest act in Colonel Qaddafi's reign of terror. The evidence is now conclusive that the terrorist bombing of La Belle discotheque was planned and executed under the direct orders of the Libyan regime.

On March 25, more than a week before the attack, orders were sent from Tripoli to the Libyan People's Bureau in East Berlin to conduct a terrorist attack against Americans, to cause maximum and indiscriminate casualties. Libya's agents then planted the bomb.

On April 4, the People's Bureau alerted Tripoli that the attack would be carried out the following morning. The next day they reported back to Tripoli on the great success of their mission.

Our evidence is direct, it is precise, it is irrefutable. We have solid evidence about other attacks Qaddafi has planned against the United States' installations and diplomats and even American tourists. Other Attacks Prevented

Thanks to close cooperation with our friends, some of these have been prevented. With the help of French authorities, we recently aborted one such attack: a planned massacre using grenades and small arms of civilians waiting in lines for visas at an American Embassy.

Colonel Qaddafi is not only an enemy of the United States. His record of subversion and aggression against the neighboring states in Africa is well documented and well known. He has ordered the murder of fellow Libyans in countless countries. He has sanctioned acts of terror in Africa, Europe and the Middle East, as well as the Western Hemisphere. Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and I wish it were otherwise. Before Qaddafi seized power in 1969, the people of Libya had been friends of the United States, and I'm sure that today most Libyans are ashamed and disgusted that this man has made their country a synonym for barbarism around the world.

The Libyan people are a decent people caught in the grip of a tyrant. Actions Can't Be Ignored

To our friends and allies in Europe who cooperated in today's mission, I would only say you have the primary gratitude of the American people. Europeans who remember history understand better than most that there is no security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil. It must be the core of Western policy that there be no sanctuary for terror, and to sustain such a policy, free men and free nations must unite and work together.

Sometimes it is said that by imposing sanctions against Colonel Qaddafi or by striking at his terrorist installations, we only magnify the man's importance - that the proper way to deal with him is to ignore him. I do not agree. Long before I came into this office, Colonel Qaddafi had engaged in acts of international terror - acts that put him outside the company of civilized men. For years, however, he suffered no economic, or political or military sanction, and the atrocities mounted in number, as did the innocent dead and wounded.

And for us to ignore, by inaction, the slaughter of American civilians and American soldiers, whether in nightclubs or airline terminals, is simply not in the American tradition. When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, on the direct orders of a hostile regime, we will respond, so long as I'm in this Oval Office. Self-defense is not only our right, it is our duty. It is the purpose behind the mission undertaken tonight - a mission fully consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Secure World Is Nearer

We believe that this pre-emptive action against his terrorist installations will not only diminish Colonel Qaddafi's capacity to export terror -it will provide him with incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior. I have no illusion that tonight's action will bring down the curtain on Qaddafi's reign of terror, but this mission, violent though it was, can bring closer a safer and more secure world for decent men and women. We will persevere.

This afternoon we consulted with the leaders of Congress regarding what we were about to do and why. Tonight, I salute the skill and professionalism of the men and women of our armed forces who carried out this mission. It's an honor to be your Commander in Chief.

We Americans are slow to anger. We always seek peaceful avenues before resorting to the use of force, and we did. We tried quiet diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions and demonstrations of military force - none succeeded. Despite our repeated warnings, Qaddafi continued his reckless policy of intimidation, his relentless pursuit of terror.

He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong. I warned that there should be no place on earth where terrorists can rest and train and practice their deadly skills. I meant it. I said that we would act with others if possible and alone if necessary to insure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere.

Tonight we have. Thank you, and God bless you.

So what words of Reagan did the author not find important? The author leaves out the parts about minimizing civilian casualties

The attacks were concentrated and carefully targeted to minimize casualties among the Libyan people, with whom we have no quarrel.

He leaves out the part about several weeks of warning and investigation.

Several weeks ago, in New Orleans, I warned Colonel Qaddafi we would hold his regime accountable for any new terrorist attacks launched against American citizens. More recently, I made it clear we would respond as soon as we determined conclusively who was responsible for such attacks. 

 He leaves out the part about Reagan explaining step by step how they knew Qaddafi was the culprit.

• March 25, 1986, Tripoli sent orders to the Libyan People's Bureau in East Berlin
• April 4, 1986 The Libyan People's Bureau alerted Tripoli

Reagan did not spring into action.  It took him weeks to build a case.  As Reagan put it.

Our evidence is direct, it is precise, it is irrefutable. We have solid evidence about other attacks Qaddafi has planned against the United States' installations and diplomats and even American tourists.

The author leaves out the part where Reagan says he will most likely not defeat Qaddafi.  If Obama had done such a thing, you can imagine the outrage.  No wonder he left it out.

We believe that this pre-emptive action against his terrorist installations will not only diminish Colonel Qaddafi's capacity to export terror -it will provide him with incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior. I have no illusion that tonight's action will bring down the curtain on Qaddafi's reign of terror, but this mission, violent though it was, can bring closer a safer and more secure world for decent men and women. We will persevere. 

Perhaps most telling, the author omits all references to diplomacy.

 We Americans are slow to anger. We always seek peaceful avenues before resorting to the use of force, and we did. We tried quiet diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions and demonstrations of military force - none succeeded. Despite our repeated warnings, Qaddafi continued his reckless policy of intimidation, his relentless pursuit of terror.

A video like the one this author produced is not designed to prove anything.  Actually proving things requires evidence and this author leaves out large chunks of evidence.

He could have compared apples to apples. Instead of comparing an off the cuff answer to a reporter, he could have given one of Obama's prepared addresses on Qaddafi.  Obama had at least three.

Remarks by the President on the Situation in Libya - March 18, 2011

Statement by the President on Libya - August 22, 2011

Remarks by the President on the Death of Muammar Qaddafi - October 20, 2011

He could have even  pulled other examples from that particular August briefing, but all these suggestions of what he could have done; imply a level of veracity that the author really does not have.

I could not find an example of Reagan answering a reporter on Congressional approval.  It is worth noting that since the question was about Congressional authorization for Obama's war with ISIS, Obama originally tried to go it alone.  After political pressure, Obama went to Congress for authorization, February 11, 2015.  As of this blog post, it has been 23 weeks and three days since the President asked for Congressional authorization.  

PS - In fairness, since the original video was likely posted September 5, 2014 to facebook, he did not have access to the President's briefing on attacking ISIS given five days later.

Statement by the President on ISIL - September 10, 2014

Coups and Civil War

September 2009, Obama had been President for less than a year, when John L. Perry wrote his piece about the military taking down the President with a "bloodless coup".

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Newsmax took down the commentary so that it would not be "misinterpreted".  According to them Perry was not advocating for a "bloodless coup", but merely describing that scenario.

Fast forward to 2013, World Net Daily writes about a rising star in the Tea Party movement, retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely who wants to make citizen's arrests of the President and members of Congress.  A couple of days ago in my news feed, a post by Conservative Tribune came up, SPREAD THIS: U.S. General Calls for Immediate Arrest of Barack H. Obama for ‘Treasonous Activities’.



This time Vallely says that Republicans will not arrest Obama, because they are afraid of a "black uprising".  He claims that Obama is trying to form his own police force and could enforce marshal law anytime.  He agrees with the host that the lower ranks in the military will rise up if Obama tries to shoot civilians.

The writer at Conservative Tribune interprets the general's remarks in a more extreme fashion.

Failing that, Vallely essentially recommended a military coup d’état, which is probably only justified in the most extreme circumstances.

But the general passionately believes that these are extreme circumstances because Obama is a traitor. Given that scenario, jail time for the president would be appropriate.

Moving from military coups, Allen West is warning the left that Christians may rise up and revolt in a civil war, Why the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage could lead to civil war.

I know there are folks on the liberal progressive left who frequent this website. So here is my message. The Christian church community is a lot bigger and more powerful than you think — they kept a Republican from winning the White House. And these aren’t just old white men – there’s a growing young Christian constituency. You can criticize the Christian right all you want, but surrendering one’s faith principle for political gain is not a viable proposition. And in the case of prosecution of the Christian church, there could be a rallying of churches, regardless of race, the likes of which this nation has not seen.

The SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage is not about the issue itself — it is about individual religious freedom and the imposition of the State’s will against faith. After all, it is the original reason why the Pilgrims fled England. And since there is no place for men and women of faith to retreat — they will make a stand. This ain’t first century Rome.

I just wanted to document this, in case anyone accuses me of making up the fact that there is talk on the conservative side about over throwing the government.

Remember when President Obama did this?

tumblr

Obama, Loyalty Day, Pledge of Allegiance

Just an interesting note: Starting in 2010, Obama started using Loyalty Day to encourage people to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

2010

Now, Therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2010, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon the people of the United States to join in this national observance, to display the flag of the United States, and to pledge true and steadfast allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

2011

Now, Therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2011, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

2012

Now, Therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

2013

Now, Therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2013, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

Loyalty Day Proclamations

Banned in Chicago...on display in Boston

If it is a Facebook meme, it most likely is not true.  The first image is of a nativity that was donated to Arlington Heights Park District.  The park turned down the donation and the donor lawyered up.  However, the park said that the donor never filled out the proper paper work.

But Timothy Riordan, the attorney for the Arlington Heights Park District, said Finnegan had simply never filled out an application for a permit. Instead, he asked the district to accept a donation of a nativity they didn’t want.
“In our view there’s no real controversy,” Riordan said.

He sent Finnegan’s lawyer an application for a park use permit on Nov. 26.

“He wanted to donate the nativity scene to the park district," Riordan said. "The park district indicated it wasn’t interested in accepting that donation. The park always had a holiday display and just didn’t think it was consistent with the display they’d had in the past. If you want to use a park for any purpose, there’s a form.”

Finnegan said Tuesday that he plans to apply for a permit to place the nativity in a different part of the same park. [1]

The second image is of a painting on display at Boston's Bunker Hill Community College Art Gallery.

“I always regretted cancelling my exhibit in New York because I feel my First Amendment rights should override someone’s hurt feelings,” D’Antuono told Fox News. “We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we are given the freedom to express ourselves.”

“The crucifixion of the president was meant metaphorically,” he continued. “My intent was not to compare him to Jesus.”

D’Antuono blamed the controversy on conservative media “trying to promote the idea that liberals believe the president to literally be our savior.” [2]

 So we have a nativity that is not banned in Chicago and a painting in an art gallery.  These Facebook memes should be sourced.  More to the point, the nativity display is intended on public land.  I would guess that there are many nativities displayed in Chicago this time of year.

Context matters...you didn't build that...part 2

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=33411

I recently wrote a post about how some were misrepresenting the President's recent speech at Roanoke, Virginia.  I mentioned that the theme in question was one of the President's common themes.  I found another example from a November 30, 2011 speech given at Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Now, I mean, I don’t want to exaggerate. It’s not like they’re volunteering. (Laughter.) But if they’re asked, if they feel like it’s going to help middle-class families, help grow the economy, help to reduce the deficit, they’re willing to help. I can’t tell you how many well-to-do folks I meet who say, look, America gave me a chance to succeed. Somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a good education. Somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a college scholarship. Somewhere along the line, somebody built the information and transportation networks that have helped my business grow. Somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a shot. And so now it’s my turn to do the next generation that same good thing. I’ve got to give something back to them as well. (Applause.) [1]

I was challenged to find an example where the President diminished his own accomplishments, by crediting others with his successes.  I hope this counts.  

Again his point is that we all have had help along the way.

PS - Supposedly, he stole this idea from this video of Elizabeth Warren.

Context matters...you didn't build that...

If you have been on the internet lately you may have noticed a meme taken from a recent speech Obama gave in Roanoke, Virginia.  Recently, I found out that a well known preacher blocked me on twitter. I always gave him at least a hundred words of context and generally an hour or more (sometimes three hours) of his unedited lectures and sermons. If I, a "Pharisee", a "Sadducee", cannot bring myself to criticize someone out of context, what do you think I think about pulling a sentence or two out of a paragraph and sometimes not even quoting the entire sentence? Unfortunately Jesus never taught people to take people in context.

"You didn't build that!" is half a sentence taken from the following section of Obama's speech.  At the most I have only seen the two sentences in bold quoted.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off? That’s what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President. [1]

The problem is that I agree.  No man is an island unto themselves.  I attend evangelical churches that forecast God's judgment and credit America's success with God's blessing.  I credit Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines a great deal for America's success.  My parents live in an area that the government cleared of malaria.  We have the world's best freight rail system.  Also, I am blogging on the internet.

  

This is one of Obama's common themes.  We all need each other.  In another speech, he put it this way. 

Now, I want to be very clear here. Nobody wants to punish success in America. The Republicans talk about class warfare. That’s -- our goal is to make success available for everybody. What’s great about this country is you’ve got a good idea, you’ve got a service that nobody else has thought of, you know what, go out there, start a business. (Applause.) Make money. I want everybody out there to be rich. That’s great. Anybody in America should be able to make it if they try. (Applause.)

But none of us make it on our own. Somebody -- an outstanding entrepreneur like a Steve Jobs -- somewhere along the line he had a teacher who helped inspire him. (Applause.) All those great Internet businesses wouldn’t have succeeded unless somebody had invested in the government research that helped to create the Internet. We don't succeed on our own. We succeed because this country has, in previous generations, made investments that allow all of us to succeed. (Applause.)

So this is the land of opportunity. But we have to remember -- those of us who have done well, we should all pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that makes our success possible. (Applause.) That’s not class warfare. That’s not an attack on anybody. That’s just common sense. That’s just fairness. [2]

Let's summarize. Did Obama say "you didn't build that"? Yes, but it clear that he meant, "when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."  Why is that clear?  He said it three to four sentences later.  

Please provide context.

So no single individual built America on their own. We built it together. We’re one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all -- (applause) -- and with responsibilities to each other as well as to ourselves. And right now, we’ve got to meet those responsibilities in this time of great challenge. [2]

Hipster Ariel weighs in on Kony 2012

Food Stamp President

Newt’s Faulty Food-Stamp Claim

• Bush added 14.7 million to the food stamp roles during his 8 year presidency. 
• In 2008 he added 4.4 million, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.
• As of December 2011, Obama has added 14.2 million.
• 47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
• 8 percent were age 60 or older.
• 41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”
• The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.
• 36 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22 percent were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10 percent were Hispanic 

White House statement about Youcef Nadarkhani

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Case of Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms reports that Iranian authorities’ reaffirmed a death sentence for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for the sole reason of his refusal to recant his Christian faith. This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values. The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution—a fundamental and universal human right. The trial and sentencing process for Pastor Nadarkhani demonstrates the Iranian government’s total disregard for religious freedom, and further demonstrates Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. The United States calls upon the Iranian authorities to immediately lift the sentence, release Pastor Nadarkhani, and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion. The United States renews its calls for people of conscience and governments around the world to reach out to Iranian authorities and demand Pastor Nadarkhani's immediate release. [1]

WSJ:Protests Against Quran-Burning Roil Afghanistan

KABUL—Afghanistan's government and religious leaders failed to mollify angry worshippers Friday, as a new wave of protests against the burning of Qurans at a U.S. military base swept across the country.

While most of Friday's demonstrations ended peacefully, several degenerated into turbulent clashes between Afghan police and marchers chanting anti-American slogans.

Afghan demonstrators shout anti-US slogans as they carry a wounded man during a protest in Herat on Friday

Afghan demonstrators shout anti-US slogans as they carry a wounded man during a protest in Herat on Friday.

The deadliest such clash took place in Herat, a normally tranquil city in western Afghanistan, where demonstrators tried to march toward the U.S. consulate compound. At least six people were killed and 65 injured during confrontations with the Afghan security forces protecting the building, according to Mahiddin Noori, a spokesman for the Herat governor. The protesters failed to reach the consulate.

All in all, at least 20 people have been killed, including two U.S. soldiers, in four days of violence that erupted after U.S.-led coalition forces at the Bagram Airfield tried to burn a truckload of Islamic literature, including copies of the Quran, Islam's holy book.

Afghan workers said they rescued the books from the incinerator and then smuggled them off the base to show to local leaders. That ignited an escalating series of violent protests that have targeted coalition military bases, Afghan government buildings, United Nations offices and other symbols of Western presence in the country.

The U.S. has tried to mute the anger by launching an investigation and repeatedly apologizing for the occurrence. On Thursday, President Barack Obama expressed his "deep regret" to President Hamid Karzai in a personal letter to the Afghan president in which he vowed to hold to account those responsible for the Bagram incident.

U.S. military officials have said the books were set aside for destruction because Afghan detainees at the Parwan military detention center at Bagram were using them to trade messages and share extremist writing. But it remains unclear why the soldiers decided to burn copies of the Quran—a particularly incendiary affront to Muslims who view the book as the sacred word of God as relayed to the Prophet Muhammad.

On the eve of Friday's protests, Mr. Karzai and the country's religious leaders tried to limit the violence by urging people to express their anger peacefully. Preachers in mosques across Kabul tried to reinforce that message during Friday's weekly prayers.

"Those who burned the Quran are illiterate," thundered a preacher in Kabul's Khaled Ibn Walid mosque. "They don't know what religion is, but for us the solution is not violent demonstrations that kill our own people."

Similar messages in mosques across Kabul prevented chaotic anti-American marches from sweeping the city center. But elsewhere in the country and in the outskirts of Kabul, Afghan police trying to block the marchers from converging on Western compounds clashed with protesters.

In Herat, shooting erupted as hundreds of protesters, some of them armed, tried to march toward the U.S. consulate, local officials said. Outside the city, demonstrators burned two police stations, Mr. Noori said.

As worshippers gathered for Friday prayers, U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, urged Afghans to be patient and wait for the results of the investigation.

"Working together with the Afghan leadership is the only way for us to correct this major error and ensure that it never happens again," he said in a statement.

On Thursday night, Gen. Allen, accompanied by the Afghan Army Chief of Staff Gen. Sher Karimi, flew to a joint U.S.-Afghan base in eastern Afghanistan where an Afghan soldier opened fire on American forces during a protest earlier that day, killing two.

"Now is not the time for revenge," Gen. Allen told U.S. soldiers gathered at the small base in Nangarhar province. "Now is the time to look deep inside your souls and remember your mission. Now is how we show the Afghan people that, as bad as that action was at Bagram, it was unintentional, and American's and ISAF soldiers do not stand for this." [1]

Also this is from ABC on the timing of the apology.

The White House says the president’s apology was conveyed before the U.S. troops were killed today.

Furthermore, the administration notes that the apology, which was included in a lengthy three-page letter from Obama to Karzai on a range of issues, is not unprecedented. In 2008, President Bush apologized to Iraq’s prime minister for an American sniper’s shooting of a Koran.[2]

Iranian Death Star

Romney not the richest, but in the top five

WASHINGTON — Just how rich is Mitt Romney? Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you’re in Romney territory.

He would be among the richest presidents in American history if elected — probably in the top four.

He couldn’t top George Washington who, with nearly 60,000 acres and more than 300 slaves, is considered the big daddy of presidential wealth. After that, it gets complicated, depending how you rate Thomas Jefferson’s plantation, Herbert Hoover’s millions from mining or John F. Kennedy’s share of the vast family fortune, as well as the finer points of factors like inflation adjustment.... [1]

Yep D'Souza, King was anti-colonial.

I am two hours into my seventeen hours of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches.  Two things have struck me.  One, King repeats himself a lot.  Two, he praises anti-colonialism a lot.  King's anti-colonialism brought this to mind.

Obama has little or nothing to do with the civil-rights movement. His roots are in Kenya, and he is shaped far more by anti-colonialism than by anything that Martin Luther King said or did. ~  Dinesh D'Souza [1]

Well, King thought colonialism and segregation were linked.[2]

For I can look out and see a great number, as John saw, marching into the great eternity, because God is working in this world, and at this hour, and at this moment. And God grants that we will get on board and start marching with God, because we got orders now to break down the bondage and the walls of colonialism, exploitation, and imperialism, to break them down to the point that no man will trample over another man, but that all men will respect the dignity and worth of all human personality. And then we will be in Canaan’s freedom land. ~ Martin Luther King Jr. [3]

Now we are all familiar with this old order that is passing away. We have lived with it and we have seen it in all of its dimensions. We have seen the old order in its international dimensions in the form of colonialism and imperialism. As you know, the vast majority of the peoples of our world live in Asia and Africa. For many, many years, people of these two continents were dominated politically, exploited economically, segregated and humiliated by some foreign power. But even there we notice change has taken place. I can remember when Mrs. King and I first journeyed to Africa to attend the independence celebration of the new nation of Ghana. We were very happy about the fact there were now eight independent countries in Africa. But since that night in March, 1957, some twenty-seven new independent nations have come into being in Africa. This reveals to us that the old order of colonialism is passing away, and the new order of freedom and human dignity is coming into being.  ~ Martin Luther King Jr. [4]  

Jay Bookman:Some cold water on overheated birther-mania

Having done a little more research into the legal process, I want to try to clear up any confusion about yesterday’s birther hearing before we move on. And yes, we will move on quickly.

Under state law, Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi’s job was to gather the evidence in the case through the hearing process and then issue a recommendation on whether Barack Obama’s name should remain on the Georgia ballot. His role in the process was to serve as a fact-finder rather than final arbiter.

According to the birther movement, Malihi told their lawyers during pre-hearing conference that he would enter a “default judgment” against Obama for refusing to appear and for refusing to even send lawyers to participate in the hearing, and that he would in fact recommend Obama’s removal.

I think that’s highly dubious. I know you will be shocked to hear this, but Orly Taitz and others have a record of claiming important legal victories that turn out to be inglorious defeats. Among other things, it keeps the contributions flowing in. Nothing presented in the absurdist comedy of that courtroom yesterday would justify barring a sitting president of the United States from the Georgia ballot. It was a farce. The birthers’ only chance is a recommendation from Malihi based not on their “evidence,” but on the refusal of the Obama camp to put up a defense against it.

Until I sat in that courtroom yesterday, I wasn’t sure why the Obama legal team had chosen not to appear. But in hindsight, they were right. Showing up to refute the nonsense presented would have given the birther arguments a dignity they do not deserve. You cannot refute air and sheer fantasy. How many times can an opposing lawyer say, in so many words, “Your honor, this is just really and truly stupid”?

In either case, Malihi makes only a recommendation. The official decision on whether Obama will be listed on the ballot will be made by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican.

In a letter to Obama’s legal team, Kemp has written that if they refused to participate in the hearings, “you do so at your own peril” because they would not have a chance to put the facts of the case on record. But I think if anyone’s at peril here, it’s Kemp, and I suspect he knows it.

A word in his defense:

If you read state law, Kemp had little legal option but to go through the motions of the hearing process. The law states that if a candidate’s qualifications are challenged, “the Secretary of State SHALL notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and SHALL advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge” (emphasis mine).

Obama’s lawyers claim that Kemp had legal escape hatches that would have allowed him to avoid the hearing. Maybe so, but the word “shall” carries a lot of weight in such matters.

At any rate, the final decision is Kemp’s. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.

In the end, there is no chance whatsoever that Obama’s name will not be on the Georgia ballot come November.

Of course, ruling that Obama should remain on the ballot won’t make Kemp many friends among a certain small contingent of his own party, especially now that the hearing has excited their hopes of victory. But that’s the predicament in which state law and these foolish conspiracy mongers have placed him. [1]

For further reading

Brian Kemp to Barack Obama’s attorney: Skip ballot hearing ‘at your own peril’

Missives from the land of the birthers

Democrats to boycott effort to remove Barack Obama from Georgia ballot

No Obama in court, no ‘birther' ruling

Politifact: Georgia Democrats say Republicans trying to knock Obama off ballot

Politifact - 'Birther' foe says Ga. bill gets Constitution wrong

Keystone Choice

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/2ef3e133-7ac1-420b-b1e3-5e1015622466.html

Obama asks to see a copy of Betty White's Birth Certificate

"Government is the solution to every problem."

The cartoon to the right has gone around the internet a couple of times.  The signature sources it to Gary Varvel, but I have been unable to find it from a reputable source.  As far as I can tell it originated in 2010, but the cartoon may have been drawn in 2009.

The cartoon has the President saying, "Government is the solution to every problem."  This is hyperbole at best and a strawman at worst.  The President on a number of occasion has stated that government is not the solution to every problem.  Here are a few examples.  I provided these, not because I voted for the man, but because I really dislike strawmen.

There are those out there who say this can't be done -- it can't be done efficiently, it can't be done effectively. We've gone through a lot of years where we were told what government cannot do. Government can't do anything by itself, we've got to have the private sector involved. But there are critical things the government can do -- right here at the Department of Transportation. (Applause.)

Each and every one of you have a critical role to play. And if you do your work, if you do your job as well as you can do, if you feel as inspired as I do about the work that lies ahead, I'm absolutely confident that we're going to look back on this time and say to ourselves this was a moment where we really made a difference. What an extraordinary opportunity that is. I hope all of you seize it. ~ REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTAND THE VICE PRESIDENT ON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE - March 3, 2009 [1]

Now, there are a number of things government can do to offer our kids a 21st century education. It can increase Pell Grants and Perkins Loans and simplify financial aid forms. It can establish better standards and assessments in our schools. It can reward teachers who are doing a great job and move bad ones out of the classroom. (Applause.) It can -- it can improve quality in early learning initiatives. It can rebuild our crumbling schools. It can offer all our children a complete and competitive education from cradle to the classroom, from college through a career. That's what government can do. That's what government must do. And that's exactly what we've begun to do, here in Washington, across this country.

And I've said it before and I know I may sound like a broken record, but I'm going to say it again: Government alone cannot get our children to the Promised Land. (Applause.) Government can't put away the PlayStation. Government can't put our kids to bed at a reasonable hour. (Applause.) Government can't attend those parent-teacher conferences. (Applause.) Government can't read a book to your child at night. (Applause.) Government can't help them with their homework. (Applause.) Government can't make sure they leave to school on time. (Applause.) These are things only a mother can do and a father can do. These are things that a parent can do. (Applause.)

We need to accept our responsibilities -- as parents and community leaders. We need to be good role models and encourage excellence in all our children, every last one of them. We need to let them know there are no excuses for not doing your best, every day, all the time, in order to achieve your dreams.

We've got to push our kids to aim higher. I don't want all our kids aspiring to be ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be teachers and doctors -- (applause) -- and scientists and engineers. (Applause.) I want them aspiring to be members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices. (Applause.) I want them aspiring to be the President of the United States of America. (Applause.) I want them to have their sights set high. (Applause.)

No excuses for mediocrity. If they come home with a B, don't tell them "that's great." I know some of you all do that. (Laughter.) Tell them to work harder and get an A. Set their sights high. (Applause.) - REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTAT THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS FOUNDATION'S ANNUAL PHOENIX AWARDS DINNER - September 27, 2009 [2]

And I'm looking for partners from government, but this is also an area where government alone can't do it. You've got to be involved. There you go -- this guy right here, he says he's ready to go. You know, for you to think about how are you using energy at home, how are you using energy in your businesses -- are you buying long-lasting lights? Are you installing insulation that saves on your energy bills? All those things cumulatively make a huge difference. ~ Remarks by the President in Town Hall Meeting, University of New Orleans - October 15, 2009 [3]

Now, government can’t create jobs, but it can help create the conditions for small businesses to grow and thrive and hire more workers. Government can’t guarantee a company’s success, but it can knock down the barriers that prevent small business owners from getting loans or investing in the future. And that’s why so much of our economic agenda has been focused on small businesses.

Last year, we enacted seven tax cuts for America’s small businesses, as well as the Making Work Pay tax credit that goes to the vast majority of small business owners. So far, the Recovery Act has supported over 64,000 loans to small businesses – more than $27 billion in new lending. More than 1,200 banks and credit unions that had stopped making SBA loans when the financial crisis hit are lending again today. And more than $8 billion in federal Recovery Act contracts are now going to small businesses. ~ President Obama Calls on Congress to Pass a Small Business Jobs Package -  May 25, 2010  [4]

But understand, we’ve got a different idea about what the future holds. It’s an idea rooted in our belief about how this country was built. We know that the government doesn’t have the answers to all our problems. We believe government should be lean and efficient. But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- who, by the way, couldn’t get a nomination in today’s Republican Party -- (laughter) -- we also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Applause.)

We believe in an America that rewards hard work and responsibility and individual initiative, but that also puts a hand up to help people live out their dreams. (Applause.) We believe in an America that invests in its people, in its future, the education of our children, the skills of our workers. We believe in a country where we look after one another, where I am my brother’s keeper, where I am my sister’s keeper. (Applause.) That’s the America that I know. And that is the choice in this election. (Applause.) ~ Remarks by the President at Los Angeles "Moving America Forward" Rally - October 22, 2010  [5]

And they’re not looking for that much -- they’re not asking for that much. They aren’t asking for handouts. They don’t think that government can or should do everything to solve their problems. But they do believe what most of you believe, which is that America should be a place where you can make it if you try. That no matter who you are, where you come from, what circumstances you’re born into, that if you’re willing to put in the work and the effort and you do the right thing, that you can make it. A country where everybody has a fair shake, and everybody does their fair share. That’s what people are looking for. ~ Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -  October 26, 2011  [6]

So we’ve done a lot over the past three years, but we can do so much more. Today, I’m announcing some new commitments. We’re committing an additional $15 million for the Ryan White Program that supports care provided by HIV medical clinics across the country. We want to keep those doors open so they can keep saving lives. We’re committing an additional $35 million for state AIDS-drug assistance programs.

The federal government can’t do this alone, so I’m also calling on state governments, and pharmaceutical companies, and private foundations to do their part to help Americans get access to all the life-saving treatments.

This is a global fight, and it’s one that America must continue to lead. Looking back at the history of HIV/AIDS, you’ll see that no other country has done more than this country, and that’s testament to our leadership as a country. But we can’t be complacent. ~ Remarks by the President on World AIDS Day - December 1, 2011  [7] 


Updated for bad grammar.

The White House and Merry Christmas

WEEKLY ADDRESS: The President and First Lady Thank our Troops for their Service as we Celebrate the Holiday Season (You will notice that this came from the  "Office of the Press Secretary", "Briefing Room", and "Statement and Releases".)

This was not enough for right wing blogger Jim Hoft who released a blog, Obama Skips Christmas Statement But Issues Statement for Fake Holiday Kwanzaa.  This was then tweeted by Donald Trump.

https://twitter.com/#!/realDonaldTrump/status/152056935712169984

However if you will notice, the Weekly Address is an official statement. He even tweeted it.

https://twitter.com/#!/BarackObama/status/150614258676281344

Jim Hoft responded with It Figures. Leftie Blogs Say Trump Is a Dog-Whispering Racist For Tweeting About Obama’s Christmas Gaffe. He states, 

"Evidently, TPM can’t tell the difference between a video and a statement. And, of course, if you point out this latest Obama error you’re a dog-whispering racist."

Again the Weekly Address is a statement.  There is this summary that is not even contained in the video.

WASHINGTON— In this week’s address, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama came together to wish the American people a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, and thanked our troops, military families, and veterans for their service and sacrifice. President Obama and Michelle Obama encouraged everyone to visit JoiningForces.gov to find ways to give back to our brave men and women in uniform and their families during the holiday season as we work together in the spirit of service.

What can you expect from a guy who is still claiming that "Obama Tripled Deficit"? I am not going to say that this is dog whistle racism.  I think this is just knee jerk reaction to perceived liberal attacks.  I leave you with the Kwanzaa statement and the President celebrating Christmas with Kermit at the Christmas Tree lighting.

Obama lights National Christmas Tree near White House

Statement by the President and First Lady on Kwanzaa

Bismark Vs Beveridge

This line is an usual retort by those opposed to Obama Care.  This faux insurance health exchange will make insurance markets uncompetitive and the government will sweep in and impose a single payer system.  This is from Texas Governor Rick Perry's new book, "Fed Up".

We are fed up with a federal government arrogant enough to declare it knows more about our health than our doctor and that is willing to risk the best health care system in the world while blatantly lying that it is not on the path to a single-payer, government-run system.[1]

However the trend is to leave Beveridge models (single payer systems) for Bismark models (individual mandates).  As far as I have been able to tell, the United States would be the first Bismark model to become a Beveridge, if the fears are true.  Some British are thinking about moving from a Beveridge to a Bismark.  Here is an argument that I found on AdamSmith.org.  

Bismarck beats Beveridge

Written by Tom Clougherty   

Thursday, 01 October 2009 06:03

0 Comments and 0 Reactions

The Euro Health Consumer Index (ECHI) 2009 was released this week, and got lots of media coverage in the UK because it ranked the NHS 14th out of 33 countries and said the British health service was let down by waiting lists and "uneven quality performance". Only 4 counties in the EU15 (Western Europe, roughly speaking) got lower scores – Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal.

The report is full of interesting information, but one point (on p9) particularly interested me. In their words, "Bismarck Beats Beveridge – yet again!" To explain:

Bismarck healthcare systems are "based on social insurance, where there is a multitude of insurance organizations... who are organisationally independent of healthcare providers." They are named after Otto von Bismarck, who founded the German welfare state.

Beveridge systems are "systems where financing and provision are handled within one organisational system, i.e. financing bodies and providers are wholly or partially within one organization." They are named after Wiliam Beveridge, who founded the British welfare state.

Anyway, the point the reports makes is that, "Looking at the results of the EHCI 2006 – 2009, it is very hard to avoid noticing that the top consists of dedicated Bismarck countries, with the small-population and therefore more easily managed Beveridge systems of the Nordic countries squeezing in. Large Beveridge systems seem to have difficulties at attaining really excellent levels of customer value."

The following list shows the rankings of Western European healthcare systems according to their 2009 score. The

Bismarck countries are in bold:

(1) Holland, (2) Denmark, (3) Iceland, (4) Austria, (5) Switzerland, (6) Germany, (7) France, (8) Sweden, (9) Luxembourg, (10) Norway, (11) Belgium, (12) Finland, (13) Ireland, (14) UK, (15) Italy, (16) Spain, (17) Greece, (18) Portugal.

Clearly there is something in what the authors of the ECHI say. They suggest two points which could explain the comparative underperformance of Beveridge systems:

(1) Managing organizations of this size (the NHS employees 1.5m staff) requires management skills which just don't exist in the public sector. (I'd say they are extremely rare in the private sector too.)

(2) The primary loyalty in Beveridge organizations tends to be to politicians and other top decision-makers, rather than patients.

Adopting a competitive social insurance system like Holland's would be a huge step forward for the UK, even if – in an ideal world – I would prefer something based on medical savings accounts. You can read more about it here, in our excellent 2002 report NHS Reform: towards consensus?[2]

P.S. - A couple of obvious things need to be stated.  Obama Care is not a true Bismark model in a couple of ways.  One, we have many single payers systems in the country already: Indian Health Service, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Administration.  Medicare also has a Medicare Advantage with a private insurance option.  These private insurers charge the government 14% more per senior, basically what the Republicans thought the public option would do.  Two, in Obama Care the employers pick the insurers for most Americans.  In a true Bismark model, the individual would pick their own insurer, thus forcing more competition.  

Cigna CEO: Don't repeal U.S. health law (CATO calls it "ObamaCare = A Bailout for Private Insurance Companies") Cigna will do just fine.  Also remember Cigna once blackmailed a hospital into not performing a surgery on a child.  This is still legal under Obama Care.[3]