This was amusing, does anyone really believe that Obama is angry about the leaks of his alleged Afghanistan deliberations?

“I think I am angrier than Bob Gates about it, partly because we have these deliberations in the Situation Room for a reason – because we are making decisions that are life-and-death, that affect how our troops will be able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing information during the course of deliberation — where we haven’t made final decisions yet — I think is not appropriate.” – Barack Hussein Obama

The decision by Obama to hold public trials for captured terrorists is undoubtedly stupid. On so many levels this decision is simply boneheaded. 

I’m sorry, but what message are we sending to the entire world, who will be watching, that American justice includes prejudged trials? We expect such things to happen in Iran, not here.

Obama allegedly taught constitutional law. So, perhaps he can explain the constitutionality of this situation? Obama has given terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the same constitutional rights as all American citizens. So, tell me, if you were ever on trial for something, how would you feel if everyone had already declared you guilty, and determined your punishment? Is that what America is about?

And if you were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer, wouldn’t you take advantage of these blatant abuses and violations of civil rights to declare a mistrial?

An act of war merits a military trial. If these terror trials are allowed to continue, especially when being used as examples of American justice, no matter what happens we lose.

Aside from the safety concerns, and the potential for intelligence gathering methods being revealed in public, there is another aspect of this situation that is troubling: the potential damage to our country’s civilian justice system.

If a certain group/organization commissions a study, you can likely expect the results to reflect the agenda of that organization. One way or another, that group is going to get the result it wants. If a group funded by George Soros funds a study, you can reasonably be suspicious of the results.

So, what about when a study is backed by the government, and the government (read White House) is pushing for government run health care?

Annual mammograms for most women in their 40s have more drawbacks than benefits, said a panel of U.S. doctors that recommended women wait until age 50 to start getting breast cancer screening tests every two years.

The change in guidelines released by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, a government-backed physician group, said women in their 40s are more likely to get false-positive tests that can lead to unnecessary biopsies and anxiety. The recommendations, which also said that self-examinations were unnecessary, don’t apply to women who carry a high risk for breast cancer. Those women should talk to their doctors about when to get screening, the panel said.

The new guidelines, published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, pit the task force against the American Cancer Society, which insisted doctors should still advise women to undergo routine annual screening starting at age 40. About 64 percent of women ages 40 to 49 had an X-ray of their breasts during the past two years, the panel’s report said.

Isn’t that convenient? While Obamacare has yet to be passed, a government-backed group publishes a study with results that run contrary to other organizations long held standard… and it just so happens that the government-back group says that less testing is necessary. Could this be a preemptive justification for reduced medical care under a government-run health care system? Sure sounds like it to me.

Since this study came out, I’ve heard a number of stories that included women diagnosed with breast cancer in their forties, who feel lucky to be alive because the cancer was caught early. So, is it really unneccesary, as this study says, for women to wait until the age of fifty to start having mammagrams every two years, not one, or is it just a reason to deny insurance coverage for mammograms for women under fifty?

Let’s consider the statistics.

According to the National Cancer Institute,

From 2002-2006, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the breast was 61 years of age. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 1.9% between 20 and 34; 10.5% between 35 and 44; 22.5% between 45 and 54; 23.7% between 55 and 64; 19.6% between 65 and 74; 16.2% between 75 and 84; and 5.5% 85+ years of age.

Obviously, younger women aren’t at risk, but 13% were diagnosed between the ages of 20-44. I can only guess how many of the 22.5 percent of the 45-54 age range were under fifty, but let’s say that it is less than half, or 10 percent of all diagnosed. So, we are looking at nearly a quarter of all diagnoses of breast cancer are of women under fifty.

Yet, this government-backed study says mammograms for women under fifty are not neccessary?

Tell that to nearly one of every four women with breast cancer who were diagnosed under the age of fifty.

• Weekly Recap (2009-11-07) http://bit.ly/2Law6M #
• The “Jobless Recovery” Nonsense http://bit.ly/3N6fPV #

Continue reading →

George W. Bush launched the George W. Bush Presidential Center today. I was able to catch the webcast. It was nice to hear his voice again after months of hearing Obama’s voice and wanting to puke.

You can view the remarks of President Bush and Laura Bush here.

About the George W. Bush Presidential Center
The George W. Bush Presidential Center will be the centerpiece of President and Mrs. Bush’s ongoing commitment to improving our nation and the world. It will examine the ideals and principles that guided President Bush’s major decisions throughout the defining years of his presidency. The Center will be a platform from which world-class scholars can build upon these principles—contributing vital new ideas to shape current and future public policy debates..

Anyway, I plan donate to the center. If you are interested, there is an embedded form in the extended entry. Continue reading →

The results of the NY-23 special election shocked quite a few of us. Knowing a number of people on the ground in the district, things looked continually better for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. But, with an apparent deficit of 5,000+ votes, and a less than stellar performance in his stronghold of Oswego County, it made perfect sense, based on the numbers, to concede.

But now it appears that the race is too close to call, with recanvassing closing Owens’ margin of victory to just over 3,000 votes.

Hoffman’s concession — based on snafus in Oswego County and elsewhere that left his vote undercounted — set off a chain of events that echoed all the way to Washington, D.C., and helped secure passage of a historic health care reform bill.

Democratic Rep. Bill Owens was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party’s narrow victory on the health care legislation.

Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.

In Oswego County, where Hoffman was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes — 12,748 to 11,000.

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed, said John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections.

Under a new law in New York that extended deadlines, military and overseas ballots received by this coming Monday (and postmarked by Nov. 2) will be counted. Standard absentee ballots had to be returned this past Monday.

Of course, there is something suspicious about these “snafus.”

The district’s second biggest voter turnout was in Jefferson County, where Hoffman also has benefited from a turnaround since election night, gaining about 700 votes. Owens led Hoffman by 300 votes on the final election night tally. But after recanvassing, Hoffman now leads by 424 votes, 10,884 to 10,460.

Jerry Eaton, the Republican elections commissioner for Jefferson County, said inspectors found a problem in four districts where Hoffman’s vote total was mistakenly entered as zero.

How does such a thing happen? I don’t know… but at least it can be fixed.

“We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals,” [John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections] said. “The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed.”

My opinion is that it is unlikely the result will change, but there are a enough uncounted absentee ballots that given certain factors, make it possible. For one thing, Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens likely gave him votes, and these ballots are pre-Scozzafava’s dropping out. Military absentee ballots are likely to favor a Republican. As a third-party candidate, I don’t know if Hoffman will get enough of the absentee votes to swing the vote tally in his favor. Scozzafava will likely gain the most… but will Hoffman gain enough? I hope so, but I am only cautiously optimistic.

One thing is certain: it ain’t over yet. Regardless of whether the results change, all the votes must be counted.

We reported earlier that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan attended the same mosque at the same time as two 9/11 hijackers, but now we’ve also learned that he “had been attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda.” months ago, and federal officials were aware of it.

It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

[…]

Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.

In a blog posting early Monday titled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing,” Awlaki calls Hasan a “hero” and a “man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.

Does this information point to Hasan being just a guy “who snapped” or a guy who thought long and hard about what he planned to do?

The real tragedy here is that this could have been prevented. For liberals who convinced themselves that Bush either knew 9/11 was gonna happen and didn’t do anything about or just ignored the warning signs, I’d love to know how they feel about the fact intelligence officials were well aware of Hasan’s actions months ago and nothing was done about it.

Perhaps we need to be asking what did Obama know and when? Or was it just political correctness that let this happen? There was clearly plenty of warning and actionable intelligence. But nothing happened.

After 9/11, no one knew what lay ahead for this country. We can only guess at how many attacks on U.S. soil were foiled thanks to the efforts of the Bush administration and our intelligence agencies, It appears that symbiotic relationship designed to keep us safe has broken down..

I guess Obama is just too busy.

While it’s easy for the left to claim a short term victory out of Saturday night’s vote in the House, I am sitting here calmly, knowing very well Obamacare is heading down a long path to nowhere.

For starters, it won’t pass the Senate. Moderate Democrats in the Senate won’t go for it.

Second, the far-left isn’t pleased. They want taxpayer-funded abortions. A bill that doesn’t mandate this is of no interest to them. NOW is already mobilizing against the current version. Any legislation with pro-abortion measures simply cannot pass, yet one House Democrat is confident the Stupak amendment won’t be in the final version. So, that razor-thin victory for Obamacare will became a comfortable defeat. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Joe Lieberman promises to join a filibuster of any bill the public option, some far-left Democrats won’t support a bill without it.

Third, once details about this bill (which wasn’t given the promised window of transparency) are widely known and discussed, you won’t see as many House members so willing to vote for it after they’ve heard a mouthful from their constituents.

With mid-term elections coming up, and polls showing lack of support for government-run health care, I am not worried about Saturday night’s vote.

• Weekly Recap (2009-10-31) http://bit.ly/YYVUs #
• Green Jobs… http://bit.ly/2oCmmo #
• All Saints Day http://bit.ly/1C7xH9 #
• America: In Need of Some De-Programming http://bit.ly/1rMk5l #
• “Stragetic Default”: Prudence or Irresponsibility? http://bit.ly/2oPchG #
• Scozzafava Proves Conservatives Right http://bit.ly/t6fQD #
• What Was That About Obama’s Wonderful Foreign Policy? http://bit.ly/1T0gUT #
• NY-23: Conference Call http://bit.ly/3itRES #
• server problems… trying to fix… #
• Our web server is still down. A ticket has been submitted… Just gotta wait and see… #
• Monday Open Thread http://bit.ly/zflbY #
• Monument to Profligate Waste Heads to Sea http://bit.ly/4ji5ES #
• RT @sanuzis: Why Cheat? NJ Democrats Already Fixing The Election? http://ping.fm/CitAW #tcot #rnc #gop #

Continue reading →

I say both.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.”  Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That’s the least that should occur.

Ed Morrissey posted a transcript of Obama’s opening remarks… it is truly insulting how long it takes him to actually address the attack on our troops.

Is Obama really that dumb? Or is this a case of “once a douchebag, always a douchebag”

Okay, I am not all that surprised by Obama’s inappropriate behavior. This is the same jackass who went to Dover recently just to get a photo-op. Obama constantly disrespects the military. His delaying his decision on Afghanistan is costing lives. The guy just doesn’t care about our troops, he only cares about his image.

UPDATE: Newbusters reveals that the man Obama gave a shout-out to for being a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, isn’t a Congressional Medal of Honor winner.