There is a striking story from the AP today, which does not seem to be getting much attention. It turns out Obamacare’s ignorant, naive and overly complex Rube Goldberg solution to ‘fix’ the best health care system on the planet has run into a major problem. It has been rejected by 90% of the premiere health organizations as impossible to implement:

Just over a month ago, the administration released long-awaited draft regulations for “accountable care organizations,” networks of doctors and hospitals that would collaborate to keep Medicare patients healthier and share in the savings with taxpayers.

…

But in an unusual rebuke, an umbrella group representing premier organizations such as the Mayo Clinic wrote the administration Wednesday saying that more than 90 percent of its members would not participate, because the rules as written are so onerous it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed.

When premiere providers of health care conclude the nonsense produced by a community organizer who thinks in simpleton, primary colors is pretty much guaranteed to fail, that is one heluva rebuke!

Organizations like the Mayo Clinic (emphasis mine) are in the business of saving lives under extremely challenging conditions. If they determined Obamacare will not work, then the verdict is in – scrap it and scrap it now. No need to listen to BS propaganda from politicians with no deep comprehension of medical care, insurance, etc. No need to listen to babbling bubble heads in the ‘news’ media drone on and on from their Bachelor of Arts grasp of science and medicine.

90% of the leading authorities in the medical field just publicly rejected Obamacare. Time to scrap that trillion dollar mistake and start over.

Tags: Mayo Clinic. Medicare, Obamacare

I grew up in the Age of Aquarius. Sadly I now live in the Age of the Green Moron.

Case in point: A joke of a government report was released in the UK warning that Global Warming will soon destroy ….

wait for it …

the news is catastrophic …

I can’t see how humanity can survive …

I might as well slit my wrists now and give all I have to the Greens …

because Global Warming will:

Ms Spelman said the UK is already investing £200 billion over the next five years.

But that will not be enough to stop economic impacts of climate change if it is invested in the wrong areas.

She warned of intense rainfall, droughts and heatwaves in the next 50 to 100 years because of man-made global warming. The signal from wi-fi cannot travel as far when temperatures increase. Heavy downfalls of rain also affect the ability of the device to capture a signal.

…

But the economy cannot grow if … intense rainfall or high temperatures disrupt Wi-Fi signals.

H/T What’s Up With That

Here’s the head Green Moron herself:

She should be fired, as should everyone associated with this nonsense. As the comments at the UK Telegraph and WUWT show, this claim is pure, juvenile fiction. It is a lie or falsehood born to criminal ignorance. I work with communications systems for NASA. I have researched or helped engineer a range of RF communications systems, from WiFi concepts for a Moon outpost with rovers, to deep space missions to Earth orbiting systems. I can tell you this is pure fiction.

But you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know your WiFi systems work just fine all around the equator, in the deserts, in the higher altitudes and latitudes. It is clear my WiFi works year around (with temps ranging from -5° to +40°C). How, then, could a 0.3°C theoretical increase over ten years destroy WiFI as we know it?

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know most WiFi is indoors in environmentally controlled areas. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to live in suburbia and see 5-7 nearby WiFi systems as you sit in your own home to know WiFi is not in danger of disappearing, but is actually quite prolific. WiFi networks are everywhere, and seem to be working just fine wherever they are located.

I would have these liars or charlatans up in front of a board of inquiry, pressing them to produce the peer-reviewed and inescapable science behind this claim. Produce a bullet-proof basis for this claim or be fired for incompetence and/or false claims.

This reminds me of fake doctors who claim they can cure cancer with herbal teas. Or those who deny the Holocaust ever happened.

This is not slick but misleading pol-speak. It is a lie. The only question is the lie deliberate or from ignorance. The debate is only on how serious the punishment should be for misusing a position of trust and leadership in such a manner. Ignorance will send you packing to find a new career. A lie should have you in criminal court.

If we don’t hold our leaders to the minimal standard of being honest and competent, then why have them at all?

Since it seems the puppets in the new media are going to refuse to explore the paralysis of the Obama administration when it came time to bringing justice to Osama Bin Laden, this will probably be my last post on this matter. As sad as this entire episode makes me, it seems the rot in DC is so extensive that it really is Nineteen Eighty-Four now. This lowly blogger has no hope of fixing leaders and media puppets more than willing to turn a blind eye to a dangerous truth. The nation is being run by incompetent amateurs who are barely surviving on the art of propaganda and misinformation.

Let me demonstrate. On May 3rd, the day after a wooden and emotionless announcement by the President that Bin Laden was dead, ABC News reported this aspect of the story:

Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.

But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.

ABC News is clearly reporting that there was at least one prior order to take out Bin Laden, an order later rescinded as the White House wrestled with its paralysis. What struck me in this marginal factoid was its pure fiction. As I noted at the time, 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS would obliterate the town. One 2k bomb would more than do for the small compound where Bin Laden was hiding out.

The exaggeration was so thick I could not help but wonder why this fiction was being added to the narrative. It seems to be a preemptive cover up for something that happened on the lead up to the attack on Bin Laden.

Then later on the same day, a rumor from an unverified source made the extraordinary claim that the attack on Bin Laden was actually ordered by departing CIA head Leon Panetta. In that narrative the March bombing order and later pullback was explained quite differently:
Continue Reading »

Update: Reader WWS notes the latest propaganda effort regarding the March hesitation by the President to go after Bin Laden is also riddled with factual errors:

The reason this was such a good hiding place for bin Laden was that predators were specifically forbidden from getting anywhere near it, under official threat of being shot down by the Pakistani AF. This was a protected military zone, not some wild borderland. No predators allowed, *ever* …

Yep – we have another false rewrite of history from this wayward administration. – end update

The entire show surrounding how Osama Bin Laden was brought to justice has really been a disturbing series of misinformation, errors and clumsy cover up. It has been so bad it has turned a national moment of victory into a real moment of crisis. Just as we take out an enemy who killed many more innocent humans than the 3,000 people mass murdered on 9/11/01, we are facing a crisis of confidence regarding our leaders and their propaganda puppets in the news media. We have been bombarded with a continuous series of untruths and corrections on the most basic of matters. And it is rattling the majority of people who exist in the political center.

As I noted when the news broke, there was a very fishy element to the original narrative that was physically ridiculous:

Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.

But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.

The point is Obama hesitated on killing Bin Laden in March, the details attempt to explain why.

As I showed later in that first post, two B-2’s with 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS is a ridiculous amount of ordnance for Bin Laden’s small compound (each JDAM creates a 50 ft crater, 30 ft deep). Two of these would be over kill, 24 is idiotic. This part of the story was so ridiculous it was obvious that someone with no military or physics background just made the entire thing up out of thin air. It was clear this came from a liberal propagandist who was trying to cover ‘something’ up. Apparently that ‘something’ was President Obama’s terminal case of paralysis in terms of authorizing action against Bin Laden.
Continue Reading »

Tags: Bin Laden, Obama, Orwell

Folks, it does not take a rocket scientist to prove the White House lied when it put out this photo while claiming it was in the White House Situation Room during the Bin Laden take down (click to enlarge):

This is what the White House Situation Room looks like (click to enlarge):

Not only is the Commander-in-Chief sitting to the side as a mere spectator, hot off the golf course. But the idea the White House claimed this was the Situation Room, and NO news media outlet called them on this bold face lie, is a serious breach in the public trust.

How could anyone confuse these two settings?

Addendum: It looks like where the photo was taken is in the complex area of the situation room, in this tiny side conference room. How strange to find this historic moment being run out of a tiny conference room with POTUS sitting on the sideline.

BTW, this is not even the President’ briefing room – which one would assume would be choice number 2 over the Sit Room itself.

John Hinderaker at Powerline wrote the post I was going to write this morning, about how team Obama took a smashing military success and turned it into a political mess:

First we had John Brennan spinning a tale about bin Laden blazing away at the SEALs while using his wife–now deceased–as a human shield. Every detail of that story turned out to be false. Then the administration claimed that it looked as though Osama was reaching for a gun, so the SEALs had to shoot him. Next, the theory was that Osama was clothed, not naked, so he could have had a bomb under his clothes and had to be shot. Another iteration emerged this afternoon, as an administration official told AFP that guns were found in the room where Obama was shot, so he was a threat to the SEALs

… in the immediate context of the raid on bin Laden’s compound, the SEALs were not defending themselves. They were on the attack, as they needed to be to carry out their orders.

I predicted the left would lose it over the jubilation that would arise from Bin Laden’s demise, and I have not been disappointed. Micheal Moore – buffoon extraordinaire – claimed it was an execution. As the saying goes: ‘well spotted!’ Then there was some idiot who felt it was wrong to kill an unarmed Bin Laden, a man who inflicted mass murder on 3,000 unarmed men, women and children on 9-11 alone (not to mention all the others killed in Africa, Spain, Bali, India and London).

This was a military action, and only a deluded liberal would confuse a military action with a law enforcement action. They are not, and never were, meant to be connected in law or history. There is no self-defense defense required. Just as there is not one required for bombing raids. (“Honest, I was just flying my little ‘ol B-52 bomber at 20,000 feet and I spotted this guy on the ground reaching for his pistol. I had no choice but to drop my load on him”.)

What Hinderaker has exposed is another case where this inexperienced White House can’t even take a smashing victory and work it to their advantage. Over half way into his tragic first term, Obama and his team of misfits can’t even do a victory lap without falling over their own feet.

If they can’t even handle this simple exercise of celebration, one does not have to wonder why their efforts on the real challenges facing this country continue to fall short and fail.

On Monday, the first full news day after the announcement we had brought Osama Bin Laden to justice, I noted an enormous inconsistency in one aspect of the story leading up to the raid on Bin Laden’s compound:

Nothing wrong with a bit of caution here, don’t want to destroy an innocent family hiding out in a fortress. But from August to February? Seems – as usual – team Obama wanted proof-perfect before acting. Anyway, I am not going to nit pick caution. My guess is the intel kept mounting and overcame a lot of internal hesitation inside this hesitant White House.

Now to shift links since this next act in the story is not in the time line from the main article:

Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.

But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.

… First off, the [2] B-2s with 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS is overkill. You could attack a small city with that kind of ordnance. And I don’t know if a ‘few dozen’ is two [24] or more dozen. This is the proverbial M1 tank used against the gnat.

What struck me about this was the amazing amount ignorance one found in this little footnote to history. I go on in that previous post to prove my suspicions, given the destructive power of a 2,000 lb bomb and the tiny size of the compound. It was as if some naive propaganda agent had cobbled together this bit of revised history to cover up something. It does not take two B-2’s with 24+ 2k JDAMS to take out a house. I remained completely flummoxed and suspicious about this deliberately leaked detail. It did not fit the rest of the narrative, and appeared irrelevant. Why was this fabricated detail added to the history by someone clearly unfamiliar with weapon platforms and ordnance yields?

Now add in some more of the narrative – like the fact we had concluded in August 2010 the compound housed Bin Laden, yet spent 6 months trying to make 100% sure he was there. Why the hesitation? Why authorize a ridiculous and reckless bombing run in March, then order it stopped, and then agonize for days over a precision strike force in April? My experience with the intelligence and military thinking precludes this kind of see-saw thinking AFTER a decision has been made.

Continue Reading »

Update: Hot Air sees a similar future in store for Obama in 2012 – that is Bin Laden’s death is no guarantee of a win. – end update

Canada’s election results should put the fear of massive electoral defeat in the hearts of all liberals:

The Liberals, who have ruled Canada for more years than any other party, were reduced to a dismal third place showing with their worst ever seat haul.

“What a great night. … Canadians can now turn the page on the uncertainties and the repeat elections of the past seven years and focus on building a great future,” Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a victory rally in Calgary, Alberta early on Tuesday morning.

“Our plan (is) to create jobs and growth without raising your taxes,” he said to loud cheers.

It was a drubbing, not unlike the 2010 elections here in the US. And it carries the same undertones and forces. Economic growth through limited government and lower taxes.

And if anyone on the left is delusional enough to think national security hawks will be rushing to vote for Obama after the death of Osama Bin Laden, then they do not understand what happened to George H.W. Bush in 1992 when he lost to Bill Clinton.

George Bush Sr. had won a decisive war against Saddam Hussein and had freed Kuwait prior to his midterm election. Most thought he was a shoe in. However, the electorate reasonably concluded the threat to the US had been significantly diminished because of this success. Who would be dumb enough to go up against a nation that destroyed the 4th largest army in the world in a matter of 72 hours of ground action? It was not the right conclusion, just a reasonable and understandable conclusion. In many ways Bush Sr. was a victim of his overwhelming success. He reduced the international threat, which allowed Americans to refocus on the economy and kitchen table issues.

With the death of Bin Laden I predict a lot of people will hope and expect a clear message to have been sent to our enemies. Don’t Mess With America! It is clear in all our minds we are not sheep willing to go to the slaughter without a fight, as Bin Laden wrongly assumed. We are a peaceful and measured people, who will act if provoked. And our actions will be deadly. We expect this to be universal common knowledge now. Not that it will be, but we will expect it to be.

Like everyone else, we prefer peaceful coexistence and tolerance. President Obama will get some credit for completing the work begun under President Bush, and for making a bold and risky decision on the mission itself. But that will not help him on the economic front. His economic record is a shambles. With Osama dead and the Islamicists on their heals, we are more concerned with finding a better economic solution than we have seen (not to mention more interrogations and less Miranda Rights for terrorists caught in the act).

The rejection of the left is still in full swing. Nothing so far has changed that dynamic, as far as I can tell.

In my usual glass-half-full nature (and the rule everyone is innocent until proven guilty) my title is more optimistic than I feel. Two reports bear serious consideration. First up, from the New Yorker:

The city is most notable for housing the Pakistan Military Academy, the Pakistani Army’s premier training college, equivalent to West Point. Looking at maps and satellite photos on the Web last night, I saw the wide expanse of the Academy not far from where the million-dollar, heavily secured mansion where bin Laden lived was constructed in 2005. The maps I looked at had sections of land nearby marked off as “restricted areas,” indicating that they were under military control. It stretches credulity to think that a mansion of that scale could have been built and occupied by bin Laden for six years without its coming to the attention of anyone in the Pakistani Army.

The initial circumstantial evidence suggests that the opposite is more likely—that bin Laden was effectively being housed under Pakistani state control. Pakistan will deny this, it seems safe to predict, and perhaps no convincing evidence will ever surface to prove the case. If I were a prosecutor at the United States Department of Justice, however, I would be tempted to call a grand jury. Who owned the land on which the house was constructed? How was the land acquired, and from whom? Who designed the house, which seems to have been purpose-built to secure bin Laden? Who was the general contractor? Who installed the security systems? Who worked there? Are there witnesses who will now testify as to who visited the house, how often, and for what purpose? These questions are not relevant only to the full realization of justice for the victims of September 11th. They are also relevant to the victims of terrorist attacks conducted or inspired by bin Laden while he lived in the house, and these include many Pakistanis, as well as Afghans, Indians, Jordanians, and Britons.

Could not agree more. I am still wondering at the hint of hesitation in the President’s announcement last night, and the bizarre leak regarding the March bombing raid, which was authorized and then canceled in favor of the surgical strike. Something just ain’t hinky here.

The second report comes from the UK Telegraph:

American diplomats were told that one of the key reasons why they had failed to find bin Laden was that Pakistan’s security services tipped him off whenever US troops approached.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) also allegedly smuggled al-Qaeda terrorists through airport security to help them avoid capture and sent a unit into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban.

…

In December 2009, the government of Tajikistan warned the United States that efforts to catch bin Laden were being thwarted by corrupt Pakistani spies.

According to a US diplomatic dispatch, General Abdullo Sadulloevich Nazarov, a senior Tajik counterterrorism official, told the Americans that “many” inside Pakistan knew where bin Laden was.

It does seem strange such a dangerous person could hold court so close to the Pak Military elite. Was it the fact we finally barred Pakistan from the operational details that we finally nailed our man? As the first article notes, how many people died needlessly while Osama was hidden?

As the proud father of United States Marine Corporal, I can only imagine what his base must have been like last night with the news on Osama Bin Laden. I can only hope it was a lot like what transpired at the US Naval Academy!

Update from LJStrata – link went away so here’s another one!

Semper Fi and God Bless America