John McCain was so wrong he was right on Iraq, so bashes Rumsfeld for being so right he was wrong.

Neither John McCain nor Donald Rumsfeld called Iraq correctly.



John McCain wanted a larger force sent to Iraq, and to be able to say the United States would quit doing things it never did in the first place, giving our enemies foreign and domestic fuel for their rage. It's not clear to me that he thought anything other than more troops and guns and tanks would be required.



Rumsfeld believed (as far as I can tell) that using technology and providing non-threatening stability would be enough to democratize Iraq.



I don't recall either man put David Petraeus' theory of asymmetric warfare together. Had they done so, there would have been to need for any of us to learn to spell Petraeus.



So for John McCain to bash Rummy now is typical of the attention-whoring style we've come to expect from the fellow who suspended running for President to not say no to TARP.





So for John McCain to claim the mantle of wise sage now, and

Amplify’d from hotair.com

McCain Hits Rummy Over Memoir

Former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld is coming out with a new memoir on February 8.  Early reports note he takes some shots at former colleagues, and expresses no regrets for the war in Iraq.

“I respect Secretary Rumsfeld. He and I had a very, very strong difference of opinion about the strategy that he was employing in Iraq which I predicted was doomed to failure,” the Arizona Republican said on “GMA.” McCain and Rumsfeld had clashed over troop levels. “And thank God he was relieved of his duties and we put the surge in otherwise we would have had a disastrous defeat in Iraq,” McCain told me. Read more at hotair.com

 

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/iclqH7

Sphere: Related Content

Tinkering to fix a bad design, 2: the stupidity of nibbling around the edges of Obamacare. #hcr #teaparty #tcot

Nibbling around the edges is the surest way for Obamacare to become ingrained in the federal administrative machine. Once the hordes of medical clerks in insurance companies and hospitals become versed in the unconstitutional law's provisions, there will be great inertia to retain it. Better the abominable hydra we know, you might say.



And if you take away the 1099 requirement, soften the mandates, and provide waivers and workarounds, it becomes a pill people can swallow.



If the government were to control every aspect of the medical insurance industry, and mandate that everyone have medical insurance, then the government would control, on a basic level, everyone in the country. Not only is the very thought of that repulsive, but the danger of abuse, by local functionaries and federal power brokers, is real.



Tinkering only adds to uncertainty. If one onerous provision is axed, will the others be? The quest will then be to lobby the government for the best position.



Because apart from personal indignities and the threat of corrupt leverage of medical information and access to health care by those government, the effect on business is at least as bad. Rather than businesses making decisions based on their attempts to please their customers, all business interests would be subordinated to the attempt to ameliorate the effects of a bad health insurance situation. In the alternative, Obamacare amounts to an ever-increasing fee put upon American businesses who elect not to pay their employees via a health insurance plan.



And the tinkering we're seeing the Republicans take part in now is just the start.

Amplify’d from www.redstate.com

How The Stupid Party Gets Its Name

Senator Dick Durbin hinted two days ago that the Senate Democrats would be unified in their opposition to repeal Obamacare except for one or two. In other words, the GOP had the opportunity to get Democrats to jump ship.

But Democrats have signaled that they want to “fix” Obamacare, not repeal it. So the GOP gladly obliged. Without any obstruction, the GOP went along with the Democrats’ changes to the onerous 1099 provision.

No Democrat had to vote for repeal because they knew they’d get a chance to say they were “fixing” Obamacare. And the headline will now be that the GOP and Democrats in the Senate are cooperating on a “fix” instead of repeal.

On top of that, however, is the stupidity — sheer stupidity — of certain Republicans now trying to undermine the litigation against Obamacare. I’m looking at you Senators Lindsey Graham and John Barasso.

Tinkering with Obamacare undermines both the lawsuit against Obamacare and the effort for full repeal. It doesn’t take a genius to know that, but it does take the stupid party to ignore it. Read more at www.redstate.com

 

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/hZpN6h

Sphere: Related Content

Tinkering to fix a bad design: the stupidity of nibbling around the edges of Obamacare. #hcr #teaparty #tcot

Nibbling around the edges is the surest way for Obamacare to become ingrained in the federal administrative machine. Once the hordes of medical clerks in insurance companies and hospitals become versed in the unconstitutional law's provisions,



And if you take away the 1099 requirement, soften the mandates, and provide waivers and workarounds, it becomes a pill people can swallow.



Tinkering only adds to uncertainty. If one onerous provision is axed, will the others be? The quest will then be to lobby the government for the best position.



If the government were to control every aspect of the medical insurance industry, and mandate that everyone have medical insurance, then the government would control, on a basic level, everyone in the country. Not only is the very thought of that repulsive, but the danger of abuse, by local functionaries and federal power brokers, is real.



Apart from personal indignities and the threat of corrupt leverage of medical information and access to health care by those government, the effect on business is at least as bad. Rather than businesses making decisions based on their attempts to please their customers, all business interests would be subordinated to the attempt to ameliorate the effects of a bad health insurance situation. In the alternative, Obamacare amounts to an ever-increasing fee put upon American businesses who elect not to pay their employees via a health insurance plan.



And the tinkering we're seeing the Republicans take part in now is just the start.

Amplify’d from www.redstate.com

How The Stupid Party Gets Its Name

Senator Dick Durbin hinted two days ago that the Senate Democrats would be unified in their opposition to repeal Obamacare except for one or two. In other words, the GOP had the opportunity to get Democrats to jump ship.

But Democrats have signaled that they want to “fix” Obamacare, not repeal it. So the GOP gladly obliged. Without any obstruction, the GOP went along with the Democrats’ changes to the onerous 1099 provision.

No Democrat had to vote for repeal because they knew they’d get a chance to say they were “fixing” Obamacare. And the headline will now be that the GOP and Democrats in the Senate are cooperating on a “fix” instead of repeal.

On top of that, however, is the stupidity — sheer stupidity — of certain Republicans now trying to undermine the litigation against Obamacare. I’m looking at you Senators Lindsey Graham and John Barasso.

Tinkering with Obamacare undermines both the lawsuit against Obamacare and the effort for full repeal. It doesn’t take a genius to know that, but it does take the stupid party to ignore it. Read more at www.redstate.com

 

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/dS9R0C

Sphere: Related Content

Halfway There: The Fight of Our Life

http://pamelavonfreezy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fight-of-our-life....

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/hH4LLP

Sphere: Related Content

Heartland Institute Experts React to Ruling That Obamacare Is Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday from Florida that the Obama administration’s health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that sued to block it. The Florida-based judge accepted without trial the states’ argument that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – commonly called Obamacare – violates people’s constitutional rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. (A PDF of the ruling can be found by clicking here.)



The following statements from health care policy experts at The Heartland Institute may be used for attribution.

---

Peter Ferrara, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute for health care policy, general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, and author of The Obamacare Disaster: An Appraisal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

“With the powerful decision of the Florida Federal District Court today joining the earlier Virginia Federal District Court holding central aspects of Obamacare unconstitutional, the handwriting is now on the wall. A minimum of four U.S. Supreme Court Justices are going to agree that central aspects of Obamacare are unconstitutional as well. I predict a fifth will join them.”

For more comment, contact Peter Ferrara at peterferrara@msn.com or 703/582-8466.

---

Ben Domenech, research fellow for health care policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Health Care News:



“There is little question that the constitutionality of President Obama’s nationalized health insurance regime will ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Given that the cases involved are focused on questions of law rather than ascertaining or investigating facts, that the law in question has been challenged now by a majority of states, and that the law’s enforcement holds massive ramifications for the American economy, I hope the Supreme Court will consider fast-tracking these cases to be considered as soon as possible.



“Until this question is resolved one way or the other, health policy in the United States must engage in a schizophrenic period which pits states against the federal bureaucracy. This is not a healthy expression of federalism, and this extraordinary degree of uncertainty ultimately does a disservice to every citizen. The fault here lies with the policymakers who rushed this mishmash of legislation through the Congress for political reasons, sacrificing coherent policy for the sake of hoped-for political gain.



“The American people now bear the pain of this monumental mistake of leadership, and as they are all individual stakeholders in the current debate, they deserve to know, and know soon, whether the Constitution allows their government to command them to purchase a product under its Commerce Clause authority or not. Not since Bush v. Gore has there been a case which so justly merits expedited consideration.”

Domenech can be reached for additional comment at bdomenech@heartland.org or 703/509-1741.

---

The Heartland Institute is a 27-year-old national nonprofit organization based in Chicago. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site at http://www.heartland.org or call 312/377-4000.

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/f7PI7U

Sphere: Related Content

Why ObamaCare is Unconsitutional: The Money Quote #tcot #teaprty

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida has declared Obamacare unconstitutional.



The money quote: (decision pdf, p 42)

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate givingthe East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

The judge ruled that not only is the individual mandate unconstitutional, but the lack of a severability clause and the decision on the part of the government to argue that the individual mandate was vital and essential to the functioning of the Act meant that the whole thing must be struck down.



I hold out hope for the Republic.

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/gr0Tjk

Sphere: Related Content

HHS Lying Propaganda over Obamascare waivers #hcr #tcot #teaparty

The Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the arm of the federal bureaucracy most charged with implementing the monstrous, 2,700 page law.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality coverage options – while ensuring that those who like their current coverage can keep it.

So if the law is designed to ensure that people can keep their coverage, why do so many need waivers to prevent them from losing it?

Unfortunately, today, limited benefit plans, or “mini-med” plans are often the only type of insurance offered to some workers.

That's the only type offered to some workers by their employers. And the reason the mini-med plans are offered is that neither employers nor insurance companies can afford to pick up the tab for someone who gets sick off the job, when that person may require care for half a century. So of course they want an annual limit. And a limit of $750,000 is enough to cover all but the most expensive medical problems.



But sense when did American citizens become "workers"? That must have been about the time they started voting for socialists.

In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000.

So, HHS, when you said it was designed to let them keep their plans, you lied.

Amplify’d from www.hhs.gov

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency Helping Consumers Keep their Coverage The Affordable Care Act is designed to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality coverage options – while ensuring that those who like their current coverage can keep it.  Unfortunately, today, limited benefit plans, or “mini-med” plans are often the only type of insurance offered to some workers.  In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit benefits.  In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits.  In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000.  Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act.  While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer.  In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers. Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.  In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.  No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy. As of today, a total of 733 waivers have been granted for 2011. Read more at www.hhs.gov

 

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/fkBocT

Sphere: Related Content