It’s Thursday, November 14th, 2013…but before we begin, submitted for your perusal, Hope n’ Change‘s take on the first of The Obamao’s innumerable lies to have actually gained exposure in any media outlet other than FOX News:
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, Commentary Magazine asks the question…
“The name plate? Just in case you forget who you’re talking to. Oh…and I can kill you with this pencil!”
To which we can only reply…
As the author notes, “Though his predecessor Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments in her four years at Foggy Bottom were slim (other, that is, than racking up frequent flier miles), right now she is starting to look like a foreign-policy giant by comparison.“
Since we’re on the subject of the worst foreign policy team in our nation’s history… including the Carter years…writing at The Weekly Standard, Elliott Abrams details why Liberals continually seek to rewrite history:
Over a century ago George Santayana wrote that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
He might have had John Kerry and Wendy Sherman in mind. For there is a long history of U.S.-Iran negotiations, and much to learn from them. (None of which Team Tick-Tock’s taken to heart!) Perhaps the best short text came from the pen of Bruce Laingen, then the American Charge d’Affaires in Tehran, in a cable dated August 13, 1979, under the title “Negotiations.” The full memo was later published by the New York Times, on January 27, 1981.
Laingen was involved in difficult negotiations with the then-new revolutionary government of Iran. There were many explanations for why the talks were so tough, but Laingen said, “we believe the underlying cultural and psychological qualities…account for the nature of these difficulties are and will remain relatively constant.”
After some very sharp analysis, Laingen drew six lessons. First, “one should never assume that his side of the issue will be recognized, let alone have merits….A negotiator must force recognition of his position upon his Persian opposite number.” Are our negotiators these days being sufficiently forceful, or falling for the Iranian charm offensive?
Second, Laingen wrote, “one should not expect an Iranian readily to perceive the advantages of a long-term relationship based on trust. He will assume that his opposite number is essentially an adversary.” But today one has to wonder if our government has adopted what Ray Takeyh at the Council on Foreign Relations called the “Rouhani narrative:” Rouhani is a reformer and we have to help him; progress is at hand. If that’s our view, the Iranians will eat our negotiators alive.
Third, “linkages will neither be readily comprehended nor accepted by Persian negotiators.” Once again, a forceful and tough negotiating stance appears required.
Fourth, “one should insist on performance as the sine qua non at each stage of negotiations. Statements of intent count for almost nothing.” Yet our negotiators seem dazzled by Rouhani’s soft words, despite his admission that he has used them in the past to stall for time while the nuclear program progressed.
Fifth, Laingen wrote, “cultivation of good will for good will’s sake is a waste of effort.” Yet our negotiators appear to think good will is a key goal, and will change the nature of our relations with Iran. We like good meetings, earnest exchanges, and expressions of positive intentions. On leaving Geneva last weekend, Secretary Kerry said that “With good work and good faith over the course of the next weeks, we can, in fact, secure our goal.” But Laingen’s exact point is that there is no good faith so it is foolish to look for it—and even more foolish to work hard to create it.
Finally, Laingen’s cable said “one should be prepared for the threat of breakdown in negotiations at any given moment and not be cowed by the possibility.” It seems the French have learned that lesson far better than we. The Iranians came to the table because the sanctions are hurting badly now. They won’t walk away so quickly—even if they threaten to do so.
The French expression “plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose” seems apt as we think about the 1979 cable and the current negotiations. The more things change, the more—34 years later—they are the same. By the way, Laingen sent this message in to the State Department, as noted above, on August 13, 1979. Less than three months later, on November 4, he was one of those seized as a hostage in the U.S. Embassy. The Times got hold of his message to State in 1980, but held it for a year—publishing it in January, 1981, when Laingen and the other hostages had been freed. They were freed the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, which is itself a lesson in how to win a negotiation with the Islamic Republic.
In other words, Dimocratic diplomacy is…
Next, continuing our coverage of the greatest political meltdown since Jimmy Carter donned a cardigan sweater and told Americans to lower their thermostats, courtesy of the WaPo via AEI, Marc Thiessen reports on…
Obama’s nonapology
There is nothing to focus the presidential mind like finding out that your Gallup approval rating has dropped below George W. Bush’s in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. So little wonder that after spending weeks denying he had promised Americans they could keep their health plans, President Obama finally said the words “I’m sorry.”
But let’s be clear: He didn’t really apologize.
Look closely at what Obama actually said: He did not apologize for misleading the American people. And he did not apologize for people losing the plans he promised they could keep. He apologized that they can’t get into Obamacare.
Big difference.
Obama said, “I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me.” Well, what situation is that, Mr. President? The situation that they can’t access the Obamacare exchanges. The president went on to say, “Keep in mind that most of the folks who got these cancellation letters, they’ll be able to get better care at the same cost or cheaper in these new marketplaces. . . . The majority of folks will end up being better off, of course. Because the Web site’s not working right, they don’t necessarily know it.”
So if you’re one of the 4.8 million people (and counting) who’ve lost their health insurance, congratulations! President Obama thinks you’re better off — you just don’t know it yet. The problem, in Obama’s telling, isn’t that Americans can’t keep the plans they like — the plans he promised they could keep. The problem is that because the Healthcare.gov Web site does not work, they just can’t see how much better Obamacare really is.
His non-apology apology is revealing, because it underscores what his administration’s 2010 regulations proved — that his plan all along was to forced millions of Americans out of the individual market and into Obamacare. He needs those people in the exchanges because most of them are healthy and don’t use a lot of services — and he needs them to join Obamacare so they can subsidize the poor and the sick. His plan all along was to force a seamless, involuntary transfer of millions out of the individual market into the exchanges.
But the White House did not anticipate that the Web site would fail. That’s what the president is “sorry” about. He’s not sorry you lost your plan. He’s not sorry he lied. He’s sorry you can’t get Obamacare.
Now Obama faces a disaster of his own making: Millions of Americans are losing their insurance on Jan. 1 and can’t get or afford replacement coverage. So in his interview, Obama hinted at a proposed “solution” — taxpayer-funded premium subsidies for people who are losing their insurance.
Sorry, Mr. President, but premium subsidies won’t fix this mess. For one thing, premium subsidies don’t help if your deductible is doubling. And premium subsidies won’t help if you are losing your doctor. Remember, Obama’s promise wasn’t just that you could keep your plan — it was that you could keep your doctor. Well a taxpayer subsidy isn’t going to bring your doctor back.
And even if those problems could be overcome, why should taxpayers get stuck with the bill for Obama’s dishonesty? Millions who were happy with their insurance, and happy to pay for it on their own, are now losing those plans because of Obamacare. They now face huge premium increases they cannot afford, because Obamacare mandates coverage for all sorts of things they don’t want or need, such as maternity care, pediatric care and substance abuse services.
And Obama’s ingenious solution is more taxpayer subsidies? Already, in the Obamacare exchanges lower-income people were going to get premium subsidies to pay for coverage they don’t want or need. Now middle-income people are going to get premium subsidies to pay for coverage they don’t want or need? Pure genius.
So millions of Americans get to lose the plans they liked, and lose the doctors they liked — and taxpayers will lose their shirt on top of it all.
In his interview, the president declared that when he said Americans could keep their plans, “I meant what I said.” No he didn’t. He didn’t say, “Yes, you’ll lose your plan, but we’ll give you a better one.” He didn’t say, “You can keep your plan so long as it is not sub-par.” He said, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”
Obama didn’t apologize. And he didn’t offer a workable solution to the mess he created. Until he does both, he’s not going to recover the trust of the American people.
In other words…
Speaking of the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people since Social Security, the Great Society and income tax withholding, Jonathan Tobin calls a spade a spade as he describes how…
“Et tu, Slick Willy?!?”
…Speaking much as if he was one of the angry red-state Democrats who think the president’s lies about ObamaCare can sink their hopes of reelection next year, the 42nd president stuck a knife into the 44thpresident by saying the law should be changed to accommodate the demands of those who are losing their coverage despite the president’s promises to the contrary:
“I personally believe even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.”
In doing so, the former unofficial “explainer in chief” for Obama has helped undermine the notion that the president’s signature health-care legislation can be kept intact. But he has also begun the process by which Hillary will begin to disassociate herself from an administration that is beginning to take on the odor of lame-duck failure.
…The point is there is no way for responsible citizens who pay for their insurance not to be the losers in this scheme since without bilking them (as well as the recruitment of vast numbers of young, healthy people who will pay for more insurance than most will want or need) it will be impossible to carry off the vast redistribution of wealth that is at the core of ObamaCare…
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/12/bill-clinton-sticks-a-knife-in-obamacare-hillary/
We don’t know what Der Schlickmeister’s up to; but whatever his game, we can say with total conviction it’s to his advantage, not ours!
In a related item, Seth Mandel, with good reason, wonders…
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/13/can-obamas-promise-still-be-kept/
Der Obafuhrer did keep one promise…
…one!
Moving on, Jim Geraghty reports why…
One U.S. Airport Is About to Get a Heck of a Lot More Expensive
The minimum wage represents one of the stickiest arguments for conservatives. Folks on the right generally think that hiking the minimum wage ultimately hurts the working poor by making them more expensive to employ, so employers will hire fewer of them. But hiking the minimum wage usually polls quite well, and opponents of minimum-wage hikes are usually accused of being callous and miserly. One of the few effective counter arguments is to pose the question, if a $10 or $12 minimum wage is good, why not raise it to $20 per hour or $50 per hour? At some point, doesn’t a high minimum wage start having deleterious effects?
The good news is the small Seattle suburb of SEATAC — ten square miles, population 26,000 — which includes Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, has volunteered to be a guinea pig, voting to raise the local minimum wage to . . . $15 per hour. Suddenly working in the coffee shop or the Hudson Newsstand doesn’t look so bad, huh? And you thought the knickknacks, last-minute gifts, and lattes were overpriced before.
The editorial board of the Seattle Times, hardly a hotbed of hardline conservatism, is unnerved:
Fifteen dollars is 61 percent higher than the 2014 minimum wage for Washington, $9.32, which itself is the highest minimum wage of any state. This page opposed the $15 wage because of the possible economic and social effects, particularly on new immigrants and first-time workers. The advocates pooh-poohed these fears and said the effects would be good.
Let’s find out. SeaTac has just volunteered to conduct an economic experiment on itself.
Keep in mind the bounds of the experiment. The SeaTac initiative doesn’t give a $15 wage to everybody. Many are inside the airport, which gives them captive customers. Other covered workers are in parking operations with 100-plus spaces or hotels with 100-plus rooms. What will these employers do? Will they pay and pass on the costs? Will they cut the number of rooms and employees? Will investors stop building hotels in SeaTac? Will airlines change operations to avoid higher labor costs here?
Then there’s this telling graphic in today’s Second Amendment segment, forwarded by Jeff Foutch:
Any questions?!?
On the Lighter Side…
Next up, five funnies from Chris Roth…
Finally, in the Entertainment Section, more News You Can’t Use, as we learn…
Tina Turner formally ‘relinquishes’ U.S. citizenship
This item just in via an “activity” report from the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, headlined “Soul Legend Relinquishes U.S. Citizenship.” “Long-time Swiss resident Tina Turner” was in the embassy Oct. 24 to sign her “Statement of Voluntary Relinquishment of U.S. Citizenship under Section 349 (a)(1) of the INA” — the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Turner, who turns 74 in a couple weeks, retired from the concert stage in 2009. She had an abusive, 14-year marriage to Ike Turner (they divorced in 1976), with whom she recorded Jessie Hill’s classic “Ooh Poo Pah Doo,” and John Fogerty’s “Proud Mary.”
Turner has lived in Switzerland for nearly two decades. In July, she married her boyfriend of 27 years, German music producer Erwin Bach (unclear if related to Johann Sebastian). Turner had taken the oath of Swiss nationality April 10. She’s fluent in German, the report said, and she declared that she no longer has any strong ties to the United States “except for family, and has no plans to reside in the United States in the future.”
The key word in the embassy report apparently is the term “relinquishment.” That means, a knowledgeable source told us, that she did not “formally renounce her U.S. citizenship under 349(a)(5) Immigration and Nationality Act, but took Swiss citizenship with the intent to lose her U.S. citizenship.” As opposed to formal renunciation — a much more complex process, we were told — there are no “tax or other penalties for loss of citizenship in this fashion.”
Guess this answers the question, “What’s love got to do with it?” Nothing whatsoever; it was all about taxes!
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.