President Obama’s Eligibility to Serve as President in Doubt

New doubts revealed in Obama's nativity story
School documents show mother left father within weeks of birth

More cracks have appeared in the official story of Barack Obama's family life, with the revelation in school documentation from the University of Washington that Ann Dunham most likely left her husband, Barack Sr., within weeks of the baby's birth.

The official story as presented in his autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," and in various accounts in newspapers and websites supporting Obama conflicts with the results of a careful analysis of the documentary evidence available.

For example, the official story claims Dunham relocated to Seattle late in 1962, but documentary evidence establishes she left Hawaii when she moved to Seattle in August or September 1961, only a few weeks after the birth of Barack Obama Jr.

Likewise, the official story describes how Dunham and Obama Sr. lived as man-and-wife in Hawaii until he left for Harvard to begin the fall term in September 1962. But the documents establish Dunham abandoned Obama Sr. when she left to begin school at the University of Washington in Seattle for the fall term of 1961, which began in September of that year.

The repositioning of the timeline revealed by the school documents may mask a yet undisclosed secret that lies at the heart of the Obama birth certificate controversy.
The Obama long-form original birth certificate continues to be hidden from the public by Obama despite a multitude of requests to make the document public.

But here are a number of critical dates documenting the birth of Barack Obama Jr. from available public records.
• Ann Dunham was born Nov. 29, 1942, according to her original Social Security Card. This would have made her 18 years old at the time Barack Obama Jr. was born.

• Barack Obama Jr. was born Aug. 4, 1961; this would put his date of conception at the earliest on or around Nov. 4, 1960, assuming there was a full nine months of pregnancy.
• Records provided to WND by Stuart Lau, university registrar in the Office of Admissions and Records at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, document that Ann Dunham's first day of instruction at the university was Sept. 26, 1960, less than six weeks before the earliest date Barack Obama, Jr. could have been conceived.

• Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr.'s divorce decree states they were married Feb. 2, 1961, in Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii. This would mean Obama's parents were married approximately three months after Barack Obama, Jr. was conceived, if the baby went full-term.

• Instead of staying in Hawaii with her husband and new baby, Ann Dunham began classes at the University of Washington in Seattle in September 1961 for the autumn semester, less than two months after Obama was born. WND confirmed this date with Madolyne Lawson of the Office of Public Records at the University of Washington.

• Ann Dunham took up residence in Seattle at 516 13th Ave. E., according to the 1961 Seattle Polk directory. This residence was torn down in 1985 and is now replaced by twin Capital Park residential towers; the Seattle Polk Directory listing is for a "Mrs. Anna Obama," a variant of her name that most researchers have considered to be Ann Dunham.

• At most, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham lived together for approximately eight months, from Feb. 2, 1961, the date of their marriage, until September 1961 when Ann Dunham began her studies at the University of Washington. But there is nothing on the public record to suggest Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. ever lived together again as man and wife.

• There is nothing on the public record to suggest that Ann Dunham's mother, Madelyn Dunham, accompanied her daughter to Seattle in September 1961, even though she was 18 years old and responsible for a baby who was less than two months old.

• There is no evidence on the public record that Obama Sr. ever joined his wife in Seattle. Instead, the public evidence is that Obama Sr. remained in Hawaii, while his wife and infant son established their residence in Seattle.
• Obama Sr. began studies at Harvard University in September 1962, which means Dunham did not return to live in Hawaii until after Obama Sr. had left the islands, never to return to Hawaii again as a resident.
• The same records show Dunham did not resume her studies at the University of Hawaii until April 1963 for the spring semester, when Barack Obama was approximately one year and five months old.

• Dunham and Obama Sr. were divorced Jan. 20, 1964.
The dates appear reliable, especially given the limited documentary evidence available about Barack Obama’s birth circumstances.

Timeline of President Obama's birth
The dates permit the construction of this timeline:


The timeline raises several questions:

1. Were Dunham and Obama Sr. ever very much in love, even at the beginning of their relationship, or was the marriage always one of convenience arranged to mask an inconvenient pregnancy?

2. Did Dunham and Obama Sr. ever live together as man and wife, and if so, what testimony is there from neighbors at the time that would establish their residence address?
3. Was Obama Jr. born in Hawaii, or was he born in Kenya? Could he have been born in Seattle or possibly even in British Columbia?

4. What hospital was Obama Jr. born in, and who was the attending physician? What official records establish these facts?

5. Who are Obama Jr.'s true birthright parents?
6. Why has President Obama prevented the release to the American public of his long-form original birth certificate listing the hospital of his birth, the attending physician and the identity of his parents, as recorded at the time of his birth? What information is on the original, long-form birth certificate that President Obama does not want the American people to see?

Many of these questions should be able to be answered if the American public could authenticate Barack Obama's original long-form birth certificate listing the hospital where he was born, the date and time of the birth, the attending physician and the names of the parents.

This leads to what is perhaps the key question: What is it the White House is determined to hide by refusing to release the president's original long-form birth certificate?
Moreover, while President Obama and his supporters have made many photographs available from his childhood, important gaps remain:

• No photographs have yet surfaced showing Ann Dunham pregnant in 1961.

• No photographs have yet surfaced with Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham with Barack Obama Jr. as an infant in the hospital where he was born.

• No photographs have yet surfaced of Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. with Barack Obama Jr. after the newly born infant was taken home from the hospital.
When and why did Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham separate?
In his autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama Jr. tells the story that his mother and father first separated when Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii to attend Harvard.

On page 10, Obama presents this version of the story, writing: "He [Barack Obama Sr.] won another scholarship – this time to pursue his Ph.D. at Harvard – but not the money to take his new family with him. A separation occurred, and he returned to Africa to fulfill his promise to the continent. The mother and child stayed behind, but the bond of love survived the distances …" (ellipsis in original)
The Seattle Times, reporting on the Obama family history in April 2008 when Obama was emerging as a frontrunner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, disclosed that the family separated when Ann Dunham left Hawaii to enter the University of Washington in Seattle. But the paper incorrectly pushed Ann Dunham's relocation to Seattle to 1962.

In the published article, Seattle Times staff reporter Jonathan Martin wrote: "By 1962, Dunham had returned to Seattle as a single mother, enrolling in the UW for spring quarter and living in an apartment on Capital Hill."
This version allows a few more months for the young mother to care for her infant son while living yet with her husband in Hawaii.

On Oct. 21, 2008, the Seattle Weekly published yet a different version of the story: "But [Ann Dunham] returned to live in Seattle around 1962, after Barack was born in August 1961, leaving her husband, Kenya-born Barack Sr., and his newborn namesake in Hawaii."

The assumption in the Seattle Weekly story is that Ann Dunham left the baby with her parents, Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Dunham, who ultimately raised the future president.

Nicole Brodeur, a Seattle Times staff columnist, interviewed Ann Dunham’s high school "best friend" Maxine Box in February 2008.

According to this version, Box last saw Ann Dunham in 1961, "when [Ann Dunham] visited Seattle on her way from Honolulu to Massachusetts, where her then-husband was attending Harvard."

Box also told the Seattle Times that Ann Dunham showed no interest in baby-sitting when they were in college, suggesting she was surprised when Dunham ended up pregnant only a year after graduating from Mercer Island High School.
"[Dunham] felt she didn't need to date or marry or have children," Box recalled for the Seattle Times interview published in March 2007.

Then, commenting on the birth of Barack Obama Jr., Box said, "I just couldn't imagine [Ann Dunham's] life changing so quickly.".

Unfortunately for Box, Barack Obama Sr. still was in Hawaii; he did not leave for Harvard until the following year.
In an unusual video now removed from the Internet, Ann Dunham's high school friend Susan Blake also claimed Dunham visited Seattle in August 1961 with her infant son. Blake said she changed the baby's diapers. The video is still noted and transcribed as footnote No. 21 in Ann Dunham's Wikipedia entry.

What Ann Dunham was doing in Seattle immediately after her baby was born is unclear, unless she was there to find an apartment so she could start school in September 1961 at the University of Washington.

Others have speculated that perhaps Barack Obama Jr. was born in Seattle, or possibly in Canada, allowing Dunham to be in Seattle immediately after the future president's birth without having to fly from Hawaii to the mainland sometime between Aug. 4, 1961, when the baby was born, and September 1961 when the fall term began at the University of Washington.

Barack Obama Jr.'s babysitter in Seattle
Mary Toutonghi, according to an interview published in the Seattle Chat Club blog, claimed to have baby-sat for the future president at Dunham's Seattle apartment in January and February 1962. The Toutongi interview provides no information about Dunham arriving in Seattle to begin classes in September 1961.

When asked why Dunham left her husband in Hawaii to come to Seattle with her infant son, Toutongi explained Dunham told her that she and the baby would be going to Kenya when she finished her education, as she had promised her parents when she was married.

Toutongi also added Dunham's explanation that her husband had an obligation to his tribe to take another wife that was a full-blooded Kenyan. Toutongi further commented, "I don't think I could have been that brave."

In an interview with WND, Toutongi said she baby-sat for infant Obama "for two or there months, when he was seven months old," adding "it was in the spring."

Given Obama’s birth on Aug. 4, 1961, this would put the dates Toutongi baby-sat infant Obama in February and March 1962.

"My daughter was 18 months old and she just had her 50th birthday this year," Toutongi recalled. "So, that would make the time around February and March 1962."

"Ann Dunham and the baby moved in while we were there," she remembered. "We managed the house and they had the rooms on the first floor to the right, immediately above the garage. Each of the rooms on that floor comprised a one-bedroom apartment. I can't remember when she moved in, but the baby was seven months old."

"It was kind of weird, but she never told me why she abandoned her husband," she commented. "I don't know if the courses she wanted were here. I couldn't figure out why she was here in Seattle while her husband was in Hawaii."
Did Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham ever live as man and wife?

WND has previously reported the birth notices for Barack Obama Jr. that were published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961 do not provide solid proof of a birth in Hawaii because of uncertainties over the policies and procedures used by the newspapers at that time.

WND hired a private investigator in Hawaii to seek out neighbors who lived in 1961 adjacent to 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, the address listed in the newspaper published birth notices.

According to an affidavit filed with WND by the private investigator, Beatrice Arakaki was a neighbor who has lived at her current residence of 6075 Kalanianaole Highway from before 1961 to the present.

Arakaki did not recall the Obama family living in the neighborhood, and she was unaware of any young couple living at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway that met the Obama family description.

If Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham lived at this address when Barack Obama Jr. was born, the original long-form birth certificate should confirm this address as the residence of the baby at birth.

The Hawaii short-form Certification of Live Birth lists no residence address information.

Obama's birth certificate is not the only document at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Jerome R. Corsi, WorldNet Daily, 7/29/09

O' Style Change' with Brass Knuckles

SIX months into the Obama ad ministration, it should now be clear: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.

Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the "Today Show" that he had met with CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf -- just as the number crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims.

Yes, question the timing. The CBO is supposed to be a neutral scorekeeper -- not a water boy for the White House.

But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health-care savings claims, Obama's budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy. In a public letter, he warned the CBO that it risked feeding the perception that it was "exaggerating costs and underestimating savings."

Message: Leave the number-fudging to the boss. Capiche?

Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his health-care press conference. "Keep up the heat" translated into Organizing for America/Democratic National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against ObamaCare's high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.

Looks like there won't be a health-care beer summit anytime soon.

The CBO and the Blue Dogs got off easy compared to inspectors general targeted by Team Obama goons. Former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin was slimed as mentally incompetent ("confused" and "disoriented") after blowing the whistle on several cases of community-service tax fraud, including the case of Obama crony Kevin Johnson.

Walpin filed suit last week to get his job back -- and to defend the integrity and independence of inspectors general system-wide. But he faces hardball tactics from both the West Wing and the East Wing, where first lady Michelle Obama has been intimately involved in personnel decisions at AmeriCorps, according to youth-service program insiders.

Obama Treasury officials forced banks to take TARP bailout money they didn't want and obstructed banks that wanted to pay back TARP money from doing so. The administration strong-armed Chrysler creditors and Chrysler dealers using politicized tactics that united both House Democrats and Republicans, who passed an amendment last week reversing Obama on the closure of 2,800 Chrysler and GM dealerships.

At the Justice Department, Obama lawyers are now blocking a House inquiry into the suspicious decision to dismiss default judgments against radical New Black Panther Party activists who intimidated voters and poll workers on Election Day in Philadelphia. The DOJ is preventing Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) from meeting with the trial team in the case. Wolf has been pressing for answers on what communications Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputies conducted with third-party interest groups and other political appointees about the case. So far: radio silence.

In the mafia culture, bully boys depend on a code of silence and allegiance -- omerta -- not only among their brethren, but also from the victims. The victims of Obama thugocracy are no longer cooperating. Perhaps it won't be long until some of the enforcers start to sing, too.

Michelle Malkin, NY Post, 7/29/09

OBAMA'S HEALTH-CARE DISHONESTY

BARACK Obama raised near-millennial expectations last year. If elected, he'd transform the dreary realities of Washington with his blazing freshness. He'd win over Republicans with his engaging post-partisanship. He'd solve long-standing national problems with his nonideological pragmatism.

None of this overpromising was ever very likely to come to fruition. But Obama has now fallen down on a much more elemental test of leadership: He can't tell the truth about his signature initiative.

Obama's health-care push has been the most dishonest White House advocacy in recent memory. What he says about reform bears no relation to the legislation he wants Congress to pass as soon as recalcitrant Democrats can be bludgeoned into line.

Obama says no one will lose his private coverage; costs will be controlled; and the legislation will be paid for. Obama must know that these are all politically necessary things to say, and also that none of them describes Nancy Pelosi's handiwork.

Obama can't bring himself to grapple with "reality-based" health-care reform, because it belies too many of his most essential sound bites. In the campaign, Obama said, "We need to tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear." On health care, Obama knows that if he doesn't keep telling people what they want to hear -- regardless of the facts -- all is lost.

The left branded George W. Bush a "liar" for making assertions about Iraq's weapons that were supported by the evidence, but turned out not to be true. Obama is saying things that aren't even supported by the evidence. They are routinely debunked by the independent Congressional Budget Office, which doesn't stop Obama from continuing to say them. It's as if the CIA issued reports every other week in 2002 explaining that no, Iraq didn't have a nuclear program nor any stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and Bush kept warning of the nonexistent WMD anyway.

Since the phantom cost-savings measures that Obama touts can't be detected by anyone else, including Blue Dog Democrats and the CBO, Obama's team came up with a deus ex machina. They'd create a council to come up with recommendations for Medicare. If Obama accepted them, they'd automatically go into effect unless Congress voted to block them.

The CBO looked at the council and estimated it'd only save a minuscule $2 billion during the next 10 years, adding that "the probability is high that no savings would be realized."

Will this stop Obama from selling health-care reform as a cost savings? Of course not. He can't admit that he is bending the famous cost curve upward, any more than he can admit that the House plan might throw millions of people out of their private coverage or that the bill will -- despite its raft of new taxes -- add another $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years.

In its latest missive, the CBO says the numbers get even worse beyond the 10-year window. So the entire budgetary rationale of ObamaCare -- improving the nation's long-term fiscal outlook -- has been obliterated.

Obama's plan is becoming one of the most implausible and thoroughly discredited free lunches in American history. Asked at his press conference last week what sacrifices people would have to make in the cause of reducing costs, Obama said, manfully, that "they're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier." As if the only factor adding to costs is greedy otolaryngologists extracting kids' tonsils unnecessarily, the strange anecdote of wasteful health spending that Obama invoked at his presser.

Surely, the public is beginning to miss Obama circa the fall of 2008. It voted for him because he seemed reasonable, different and moderate. He could recapture that appeal by pronouncing the health-care effort so far an unfortunate misfire and starting again on a truly bipartisan basis. But he prefers to risk going down fighting -- and dissembling -- on behalf of his grand, misbegotten scheme.

Rich Lowry, NY Post, 7/28/09

The Shrinking President

Just as small men can be great, the important can be small. Barack Obama, who strode the political world last year as a new Colossus, is shrinking before our eyes. His proclamation that the Cambridge, Mass., police “acted stupidly” in arresting his personal friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was one of those “teachable moments” the president is so fond of creating.

But the lesson of that moment is not the one the president apprehended. It is a lesson that proved how little the president appreciates the office he holds.

I use that term precisely: not in the sense that Obama doesn’t like the power he holds. He, more than any president in memory, takes personal enjoyment from exercising it. His lack of appreciation is a lack of understanding of that power and the limits on how it should be exercised.

Obama’s team orchestrates press conferences at an unprecedented level. They talk to reporters about questions to be asked, prepare Obama for his answers (displayed on a huge off-camera teleprompter behind the reporters where Obama can read from it) and only then does the president face his amen chorus of the media.

In the July 22 presser, Obama was asked about the disorderly conduct arrest of Harvard Professor Gates. Obama said:

Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here… Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.

The official police report of the arrest says that Gates was loud, abusive and uncooperative with the investigating officer who was responding to a call about a possible break-in at the house. Gates reportedly shouted continuously at Crowley, accusing him of being a racist and telling him that he had no idea “who he was messing with” and that Crowley “…had not heard the last of it.” Apparently, Obama delivered on that threat. He spoke as if he were Jesse Jackson, not the President of the United States.

The arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, has a better and deeper understanding of the office of president than the man who holds it. He told a radio interviewer that Obama, “…was way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts."

The American presidency is a national office, not that of a Chicago ward-heeler. A president’s words carry the weight and power of the nation. His constitutional charter makes him the chief administrator of law and policy as well as commander in chief. His charter does not extend to interfering in matters that are not within that charter.

There is no precedent for Obama’s intervention in the Gates arrest. Presidents do not interfere in law enforcement matters. That Gates is Obama’s friend makes it even worse. It’s perfectly right for a president to express confidence in an embattled cabinet member, though that’s usually done right before the guy resigns. It’s an abuse of power for a president to try to influence a law enforcement matter.

In short, Obama’s intervention was more than inappropriate: it was a wrongful exercise of the power of the office he holds. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 26% of Americans approve of the way Obama responded to the question about Gates’ arrest. It was a “teachable moment,” but the president didn’t learn from it.

Two days after the July 22 presser, Obama defended his intervention. He said, “There are some who say that as President I shouldn't have stepped into this at all because it's a local issue. I have to tell you that that part of it I disagree with. The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive -- as opposed to negative -- understandings about the issue, is part of my portfolio.”

Barack Obama’s political power shrank as he spoke, doubly so as he compounded the offense. Obama is a small man, as deeply shallow as Paris Hilton. But unlike the Euro pop-tart, Obama is shrinking in influence and stature at an accelerating rate.

Obama suffers from many things, not the least of which were the enormous expectations for his success. It’s not that long ago when Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said that he was, “above the country, above the world: he’s a sort of God.” As The Economist points out this week in a column entitled, “The Obama Cult”, at one time people were wearing t-shirts proclaiming Obama as “The One” and “Jesus was a community organizer.”

Underneath the glitter, there is no greatness. Barack Obama is a small man in a large and important job. He and his adulators have created a cult of personality that is already falling apart.

Obama speaks in broad terms, as presidents must, at first, before the details are managed. But Obama’s broad terms -- from the stimulus package to health care to “cap and trade” -- were never articulated, just outsourced to the liberals in Congress who have run riot. Even the House “Blue Dog” Democrats are walking away from the president’s signature initiative on health care.

Negotiations between the Blue Dogs and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) broke down on Friday with the seven Blue Dog negotiators reportedly storming out of the session saying they’d been “lied to” and that Waxman wasn’t negotiating in good faith.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the leader of the Blue Dogs, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.” From whom?

Ross’s mission is to save the Democrats from Obama. He won’t succeed. The Democrats’ disarray -- in the House as well as in the Senate -- betrays Obama’s diminishing influence. But the hyperliberals such as Waxman and Pelosi won’t moderate the way Congress pursues Obama’s goals because those goals were theirs long before Obama was elected president. And he will sign any health care bill they send to him, no matter how radical or costly.

As Obama shrinks, so does his ability to affect events both domestically and internationally. His agenda -- especially health care nationalization and “cap and tax” -- is in real trouble. And so are our nation and our allies abroad.

On the July 26 edition of “Meet the Press,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons “futile” and said to Iran, “…we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon.” Which contradicted directly Obama’s June 4 Cairo speech. In it, he said, “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.” Obama green-lighted Iran’s nuclear weapons program, so no one in Iran will -- or should -- take Clinton’s words seriously.

As I write, a parade of top-ranking U.S. officials -- including Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and possibly National Security Advisor James Jones -- are flocking to Israel to try heal the breach between us and the Israelis over Obama’s demands to end West Bank Settlements and to stave off an Israeli attack on Iran. They will not succeed because Obama -- in his Cairo speech and in his demands of Israel -- threw away what little leverage he had.

Great presidents are like chess players: they see three or four moves ahead, sacrificing occasionally but moving only to better our nation’s internal strength and position in the world. Barack Obama is playing checkers.

Jed Babbin, Human Events, 7/27/09

Obama’s Version of Transparency: Dubious Czars

THE REAL POWER IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS UNCONFIRMED AND UNACCOUNTABLE

If you can't beat 'em, czar 'em. This is the standard operating procedure in Obama World. The time-honored Senate confirmation process proved to be a dangerous landmine for one too many of the president's picks. But the White House found the perfect cure for Obama Nominee Withdrawal Syndrome: Avoid future debacles by circumventing the nomination process altogether.

So far, czars have been installed in at least 35 posts through presidential executive orders that require no Senate approval. No Senate review, no questions. No questions, no problems.

The Obama administration has created a two-tiered government -- fronted by Cabinet secretaries able to withstand public scrutiny (some of them, just barely) and then managed behind the scenes by shadow secretaries with broad powers beyond congressional reach. Bureaucratic chaos serves as a useful smokescreen to obscure the true source of policy decision-making. Energy czar Carol Browner epitomized the secretive dealings of these offices when she advised auto industry executives this month to "to put nothing in writing, ever" about their meetings with her.

While past administrations dating back to the Nixon era have designated such "super aides," none has extended the concept as widely as Obama has. Currently, 35 out of 44 current "czar" slots are presidential appointments. They are among the highest-paid staffers at the White House. Most of Obama's key czars have Cabinet counterparts already in place.

It's not just the unprecedented quantity of White House-appointed bureaucratic commissars that galls. It's their shockingly compromised ethics and integrity. Here are three of Obama's most interest-conflicted, superfluous, and criminal czars and czarinas:

Nancy DeParle, Health Czar

Former Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius won Senate confirmation as Health and Human Services Secretary. But the real power lies with with newly-created health czar Nancy-Ann Min DeParle. Her official title: Director of the White House Office for Health Reform.

DeParle ran the behemoth Medicare and Medicaid programs under Bill Clinton. She parlayed her government experience into a lucrative private-sector stint. Over the past three years, she made nearly $6 million from her work in the health care industry. Despite President Obama's loud denunciations of the revolving-door lobbyist culture in Washington, DeParle's industry ties didn't bother the White House.

She served as an investment advisor at JP Morgan Partners, LLC; sat on the board of directors at Boston Scientific Corporation; and held directorships at Accredo Health Group Inc., Triad Hospitals (now part of Community Health Systems), and DaVita Corporation. In all, she sat on at least 10 boards while advising JP Morgan and working as managing director at a private equity firm, CCMP Capital.

From 2002 to 2008, while holding all those titles, DeParle also served as a member of the government-chartered Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC), an influential panel that advises Congress on what Medicare should cover and at what price. Last month, former MedPAC member DeParle cozily announced that Obama was "open to making recommendations of [MedPAC] mandatory unless opposed by a joint resolution of Congress."

Obama famously signed an early executive order requiring appointees to pledge not to participate "in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to any former employer or former clients" for a period of two years from the date of his or her appointment. But it's hard to imagine any health care reform-related issue that won't involve one of DeParle's former employers, clients, and corporate boards in the health care industry. She earned at least $376,000 from Cerner Corporation, for example, which specializes in health information technology. As health czar, DeParle has unmeasured clout in directing $19 billion of federal stimulus money earmarked for, yes, health information technology.

Last week, a Washington, D.C. citizen watchdog filed suit to force the White House to disclose which health care lobbyists and executives it had met with this year to discuss insurance takeover legislation. White House counsel Greg Craig refused to disclose which administration officials attended the meetings. But at least two of the industry visitors have ties to DeParle. William C. Weldon is chairman of Johnson & Johnson, which paid DeParle $7,500 for a recent speech. Wayne Smith is chief executive of Community Health Systems, which merged with Triad Hospitals - where DeParle served on the board of directors. DeParle's options were converted to cash payments worth $1.05 million.

Despite Obama's lip service to transparency, the public is in the dark about which assets DeParle has divested and how many times, if any, DeParle has recused herself from policy matters and meetings. Czardom has its privileges.

Adolfo Carrion, Urban Czar

Former Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión Jr., the nation's "urban czar" is a man in Obama's own image: Son of immigrants. Charismatic. Ambitious. And embroiled in pay-for-play scandals that would make the Chicago political machine proud.

Carrion's official title: Head of the White House Office of Urban Affairs. But doesn't the president already have a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development? Yes. That spot went to Harvard grad and former Clinton HUD official Shaun Donovan, who moved up from his role as New York City commissioner of housing and development. Grievance groups, however, were miffed that the HUD job didn't go to a racial or ethnic minority. (Donovan is white; HUD is a notorious bastion of cronyism of color.) Enter Carrión.

As a reward for turning out the Latino vote, Obama gave Carrion the unprecedented power to shower federal dollars on urban areas and coordinate urban policy across several bureaucracies. In practice, the job empowers Carrión to carry out the kind of pay-to-play schemes that sullied his tenure in the Bronx on a nationwide scale. It's Obama-approved old school patronage dressed up as the new urban renewal.

As Bronx Borough president, Carrion took tens of thousands of dollars in donations from real estate firms just before and after the developers snagged lucrative deals or crucial zoning changes for their projects. In turn, he made millions in public tax dollars available to his cronies. And Carrion rubber-stamped three housing projects for an architect whom he hired to renovate his City Island Victorian home. It is illegal for an elected official to accept such a gift, but Carrión failed to pay the architect until after he was tapped for his urban czar post. The White House shrugged.

Similar arrangements involving home renovation freebies from corporate suitors resulted in multiple criminal convictions for entrenched Alaska GOP Senator Ted Stevens and forced the resignation of Republican former Connecticut Governor John Rowland. But there was barely a peep from the Beltway's clean government types about Carrión's smelly deals. He is also a lavish spender - squandering nearly $20,000 on a teleprompter, junkets to San Juan, and $50,000 on a going away party for himself. Viva la Hope and Change.

Vivek Kundra, Technology Czar

Who thinks putting a shoplifter in charge of the entire federal government's information security infrastructure is a good idea? The Obama White House has complete confidence in Vivek Kundra, the 34-year-old "whiz kid" named Federal Chief Information Officer in March 2009 despite his criminal history. As first reported by Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com, Kundra was convicted of misdemeanor theft. He stole a handful of men's shirts from a J.C. Penney's department store and ran from police in a failed attempt to evade arrest. Kundra was a 21-year-old adult at the time of his attempted thievery and attempted escape from the police. From the White House's pooh-poohing of the incident as a "youthful indiscretion," you might have thought the digits in his age were reversed.

Whitewashing the petty thief's crimes, Obama instead effused about his technology czar's "depth of experience in the technology arena." As the nation's CIO, Kundra "will play a key role in making sure our government is running in the most secure, open, and efficient way possible." But the aura of security and openness was further thrown into doubt in March when an FBI search warrant was issued at Kundra's office. He was serving as the Chief Technology Officer of the District of Columbia before moving over to the White House.

During the transition, two of Kundra's underlings, Yusuf Acar and Sushil Bansal, were charged in an alleged scheme of bribery, kickbacks, ghost employees, and forged timesheets. Kundra was put on leave for five days and then reinstated after the feds informed him that he was neither a subject nor a target of the investigation. Team Obama emphasized that Kundra had no idea what was going on in his workplace, which employed about 300 workers.

But if his claimed ignorance is supposed to exonerate Kundra, what does it suggest about his ability to police government technology operations across the entire federal government? And what responsibility and oversight exactly did Kundra have over the indicted employees in his office?

Veteran D.C. newspaper columnist Jonetta Rose Barras reported that Acar "was consistently promoted by his boss, Vivek Kundra, receiving with each move increasing authority over sensitive information and operating with little supervision." The raid was no surprise to city and federal watchdogs, who had identified a systemic lack of controls in the office. Now, Kundra promises to create "a culture of accountability and innovation" in order to prevent "theft and fraud." The anti-crime prevention strategy of Obama's technology security chief: Takes one to know one.

The czar explosion illustrates the first law of political physics: As government grows, corruption flows. Unchecked, these super-bureaucrats have the power to wreak major havoc on the economy and our lives. Who will stop them?

Michelle Malkin, NY Post, 7/26/09

Brooklyn Nurse Forced to Assist in Abortion Suing Hospital

A Brooklyn nurse claims she was forced to choose between her religious convictions and her job when Mount Sinai Hospital ordered her to assist in a late-term abortion against her will.

The hospital even exaggerated the patient's condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit.

"It felt like a horror film unfolding," said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, 35, who claims she has had gruesome nightmares and hasn't been able to sleep since the May 24 incident.

The married mother of a year-old baby was 30 minutes into her early-morning shift when she realized she had been assigned to an abortion. She begged her supervisor to find a replacement nurse for the procedure. The hospital had a six-hour window to find a fill-in, the suit says.

Bosses told the weeping Cenzon-DeCarlo the patient was 22 weeks into her pregnancy and had preeclampsia, a condition marked by high blood pressure that can lead to seizures or death if left untreated.

The supervisor "claimed that the mother could die if [Cenzon-DeCarlo] did not assist in the abortion."

But the nurse, the niece of a Filipino bishop, contends that the patient's life was not in danger. She argued that the patient was not even on magnesium therapy, a common treatment for preeclampsia, and did not have problems indicating an emergency.

Her pleas were rejected, and instead she was threatened with career-ending charges of insubordination and patient abandonment, according to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court.

Feeling threatened, Cenzon-DeCarlo assisted in the procedure.

She said she later learned that the hospital's own records deemed the procedure "Category II," which is not considered immediately life threatening.

"I felt violated and betrayed," she recalled. "I couldn't believe that this could happen."

A native of the Philippines, Cenzon-DeCarlo moved to New York in 2001 and started at Mount Sinai on the East Side as an operating-room nurse in 2004. During her job interview, an administrator asked Cenzon-DeCarlo whether she'd be willing to participate in abortions. She flatly said no.

The nurse said she put her beliefs in writing.

The day after the procedure, Cenzon-DeCarlo filed a grievance with her union. Later that week, she was cornered by two supervisors who told her if she wanted any more overtime shifts, she would have to sign a statement agreeing to participate in abortions, the suit says.

The next month, Cenzon-DeCarlo was assigned to one overtime shift, rather than the eight or nine she usually received, the suit claims.

Although the Brooklyn resident is still working at Mount Sinai, she's asking a court to order the hospital to pay unspecified damages, restore her shifts and respect her objections to abortion.

"I emigrated to this country in the belief that here religious freedom is sacred," Cenzon-DeCarlo said. "Doctors and nurses shouldn't be forced to abandon their beliefs and participate in abortion in order to keep their jobs."

Providing legal advice for her action is the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group seeking to put a national spotlight on the case. The suit also seeks to force Mount Sinai to give up federal funding it receives, because it failed to uphold a federal rule protecting employees who have moral objections to controversial procedures.

Mount Sinai said it would not comment.

Galen Sherwin, the director of the New York Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Rights Project, said the case centered on whether a medical emergency existed.

"The law provides protections for individuals who object to performing abortions, but at the same time, health-care professionals are not permitted to abandon patients," Sherwin said.

Kathianne Boniello, NY Post, 7/26/09

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel-Bro of Obama’s Chief of Staff: Wants Our Seniors to Go Away and Die To Save Money

DEADLY DOCTORS
O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE


THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infec tion Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governo, NY Post, 7/24/09

Obama’s Liar-fest Rx Press Conference

President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.

Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.

A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:

__

OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.

Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.

It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.

He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."

He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."

___

OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

___

OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."

___

OBAMA: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

THE FACTS: The facts are in dispute between black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the white police sergeant who arrested him at his Cambridge, Mass., home when officers went there to investigate a reported break-in. But this much is clear: Gates wasn't arrested for being in his own home, as Obama implies, but for allegedly being belligerent when the sergeant demanded his identification. The president did mention that the professor was charged with disorderly conduct. Charges were dropped.

___

OBAMA: "If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."

THE FACTS: Obama's numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president's budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.


CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press, 7/23/09

Obama HealthCare Plan: Same Soup in a Different Bowl

Doctor O made the right diagnosis last night of what's ailing America's health- care system, but he wrote the wrong prescription.

Reminding us all why he won the presidency, Obama deftly channeled American frustration with a medical system that is bankrupting honest taxpayers, struggling families and valuable companies.

Obama described how the disastrous deficits that plague American medicine will surely spread even further to infect every other quarter of the economy.

He even understood that the problem with America's medical system is that it celebrates inefficiency, punishes innovation and forbids competition.

But this is where the president morphed into a big government snake oil salesman.

Like Democratic leaders in Congress, his solution is to raise taxes to create a massive new entitlement program run that will one day dwarf all the other monstrous entitlement programs the federal government has already mismanaged into the ground.

It's as if he willfully ignores that the single biggest reason American health care is such a complete disaster is that the federal government is already far and away the biggest player in the field of medicine.

Through Medicare and Medicaid, the feds set medical prices and interfere with every aspect of American medicine.

And don't forget that these two behemoth entitlement programs sit now on the brink of insolvency because of rank mismanagement by government bureaucrats.

So Obama wants to reward this complete failure and criminal recklessness with even more of your money and an even bigger and more unmanageable federal program?

A program that, according to the government's own auditors, won't do any more to lower costs than Medicare and Medicaid already do?

This is not the change Obama promised. It's the same tired, old solution we've always heard from big government liberals.

As Obama said last night, "If we don't change, we can't expect a different result."

Charles Hurt, NY Post, 7/23/09

Weak-kneed, Apologetic, Obama-plomacy Puts America at Risk

MOST Americans have noticed that President Obama's economic policies aren't getting the job done. Fewer, however, realize that the administration's foreign policies are flagging after just six months in the White House, too.

Yup, that's right: All that Obama hopey-changey, blame- America-first, anything-but-W stuff hasn't restored, much less advanced, America's position in the world as was promised.

In fact, quite the opposite: Weak-kneed, apologetic "Obama-plomacy" is already being exploited across the globe -- at great expense to our national security.

Start with Iran: The Obama administration has extended an unclenched fist toward the mullahs, but the theocrats have done little more than slap it away -- repeatedly.

In fact, today they have even more uranium-enriching centrifuges spinning, meaning Iran is moving closer to having the bomb. Many analysts believe the fateful moment is just around the corner.

Yet the administration wants to give Tehran more time (till the end of the year) to see the error of its ways. Sorry, Mr. President: After 20-plus years of involvement in a mostly clandestine nuclear program, that's just not likely.

This "What, me worry?" attitude is putting Israel and the Arab Middle East increasingly on edge as they await the day Iran joins the Mushroom-Cloud Club.

And where was the leader of the Free World when Iranians were demonstrating -- indeed, dying -- for liberty on Tehran's streets recently? Spending weeks dithering with talking points to ensure he didn't look like he was "intervening."

Over in Asia, North Korea has launched missiles, set off a nuke and threatened war. The regime is refusing to come back to the nuclear-negotiating table and is holding two arrested US journalists. It's also likely trying to send bad stuff to the junta in Myanmar (possibly for transshipment to Iran or another rogue regime).

While he's rightly surged US troops in Afghanistan, Obama was unable to charm the Europeans into giving more troops, despite our mutual interest in keeping the country out of terrorists' mitts.

And then there's Russia. We made unilateral concessions in a strategic-arms agreement that may undermine the strength of our conventional forces by eliminating dual-mission bombers and submarines.

Obama's hope was that in exchange for the (in principle) nuke-arms-reducing pact, we'd get the Kremlin's help stopping Tehran's nuclear program. Oops: After the summit, Moscow publicly delinked the two issues.

Nor have we reached an understanding with Russia on the missile-defense bases the Bush administration was planning to build in Eastern Europe to protect us from Iran.

Speaking of Eastern Europe: America's fawning over Russia has left these nations wondering about Obama's commitment to their security in the looming shadow of an increasingly growly Moscow bear. In an open letter to Obama last week released in a Polish newspaper, 20 former senior officials from the region expressed concern about current US policies.

In Latin America, the Obamanistas totally botched the situation in Honduras, siding with power-grabbing, deposed President Manuel Zelaya -- and thus with his ally, Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez.

They've also back-burnered getting Congress to ratify free-trade agreements with our best ally in Latin America, Colombia, as well as Panama -- and have gone cheap on helping Mexico fight the surging narcotraficantes just over the border.

Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri and the rest of the al Qaeda gang haven't given up the ghost yet, either, despite Obama's can't-we-all-just-get-along speech in Cairo.

Sadly, there's nothing to balance out this string of losses in the wins column, sports fans. The hapless Washington Nationals have a better record.

OK, foreign policy is a tough business. But Obama overpromised on foreign affairs -- and, so far, he's underdelivered.

The president wrongly thought he could turn his perceived popularity abroad into results. Instead, like many liberals in the past, he's come face-to-face with the reality of the dog-eat-dog world of international politics, where some of the pooches are self-interested pit bulls. If current trends continue, we're going to end up on the wrong end of someone's canine teeth.

Indeed, as many have correctly said over the years, getting domestic policy wrong can cost people their jobs -- and it has. But getting foreign policy wrong can cost people their lives -- and it will.

Peter Brookes, NY Post, 7/23/09

Why Government HealthCare is Bad HealthCare

American Medical Association Takes a Dive for Obama

SINCE the American Medical Association has thrown its sup port behind the House version of President Obama's health-care bill, I've decided not to renew my membership. I'm sure I'm not alone.

The AMA and its president, Dr. J. James Rohack, are either naive or disingenuous when they say they hope this bill will lead to the preservation of Medicare and Medicaid payments to physicians and hospitals. It's clear that Congress' "reforms" are headed in exactly the opposite direction.

Consider that the American Hospitals Association has agreed to accept $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts in return for a seat at the Obama table. This, despite the fact that the vast majority of patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid can only receive essential services at hospitals -- which have networks of physicians precisely to take care of these patients.

Creating a "public option" health-insurance policy (a key feature in all the current plans) spells disaster for doctors. It will inevitably lead to government rationing of care -- that is, bureaucrats deciding that a given procedure or drug costs "too much" -- even if it's the most effective care for that patient.

It also risks having the government decide that a given patient -- e.g., a sickly senior citizen -- isn't worth further expensive care.


How so? Simple: If the government is offering insurance, it will have to try to control costs -- indeed, cost control is the "virtue" that Obama most often promises for his reforms. And every country that has adopted some form of national health insurance has eventually opted to deny treatment in the name of cutting costs.

In my medical office and in offices throughout the country, doctors are already hamstrung by Medicare and Medicaid -- whose reimbursements keep shrinking, even as our costs for providing care inevitably rise as medicine develops new treatments.

I don't think most people yet realize that their health care will be compromised as the rising costs and shrinking reimbursements imposed by "reform" drive doctors and hospitals to the brink (at least) of going out of business.

The AMA, of all organizations, should understand the difference between health insurance and health care -- that is, that having insurance doesn't equal access to care.

Just as car insurance won't help you if there are no repair shops around, having Medicaid doesn't mean you can find a doctor to take care of you -- and a recent survey shows that more than half of doctors don't accept Medicaid.

It's mind-boggling that the AMA would betray its members by backing growing government control of health insurance, when this is sure to squeeze doctors into retiring or turning their practice into low-quality "Medicaid mills."

Do we want the several-month waiting lines for hip replacements, brain and gall-bladder surgery that exist in Canada?

My answer is the same as all my patients': No. Marc K. Siegel is a prac ticing internist, an associ ate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor., NY Post, 7/22/09

RX FOR DISASTER

83 MILLION OF US WON'T KEEP OUR INSURANCE

AT tonight's press conference, someone should ask President Obama why he's endorsing, and not threatening to veto, the 1,018-page House health-care reform bill now being rushed to passage: It breaks nearly all his core promises about health-care reform.

DEM REBS KO HEALTH VOTE

By DR. MARC K. SIEGAL: AMA TAKES HARMFUL PILL

"If you have health insurance, then you don't have to do anything," Obama said on Oct. 15, 2008. "If you've got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan. . . And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year."

Both these solemn pledges, repeated often ever since and as recently as yesterday, are violated in the House bill. Its perverse incentives, plus the onerous regulations Congress plans to impose on employer-provided insurance, would cause more than half of those with employer-provided insurance to lose it -- 83.4 million Americans, according to The Lewin Group, a prominent, politically neutral health-care analysis firm.

And for those who do manage to keep their current insurance -- well, it won't cost $2,500 less, as Obama promised. Lewin estimates it will cost $460 a year more because of new cost-shifting from the government-run plan to private health plans.

That's right. The $1.3 trillion House health-care bill would cause millions of Americans to lose the insurance they have now -- while the rest of us would pay even more than we do now.

Most of those who lose their current insurance would be enrolled in Congress' newly created government-run health plan. The health benefits these Americans get would be decided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on the recommendations of a newly created Health Benefits Advisory Committee. The HHS team would decide, year by year, what health-care benefits you would and would not get in the government-approved package.

Change we can believe in, huh?

Congress would authorize the HHS secretary to pay doctors and hospitals who participate in its health plan on the basis of Medicare rates, plus 5 percent.

But Medicare rates are much lower than those in private insurance -- 19 percent lower for doctors and 32 percent lower for hospitals. So the plan means big cuts in payments to health-care providers. They'd try to cover part of their losses by charging more to the private plans still left.

Doctors would lose -- big time. Based on the projected number of people forced out of private insurance and into the public plan, the Lewin Group estimates that physicians will lose $13.4 billion in net income -- equivalent to an average pay cut of 6.3 percent.

Hospitals would be hit even harder, losing $67 billion in revenue. That's more than the total net cash flow of all the hospitals in the country. Facing bankruptcy, a lot of hospitals might have to close their doors.

It could get worse. The Lewin Group's estimate of the rise in premiums only accounts for the possibility that doctors and hospitals would try to raise prices on the privately insured to make up for their losses from patients in the new public plan.

But there's another reason why private insurance premiums might increase even more: The House bill also creates a new office with the Orwellian title "Health Choices Commissioner." After a five-year "grace" period, employer-sponsored private health plans would be subject to approval by this commissioner.

The commissioner would be empowered to set benefit levels, decide what services will be covered regardless of the preferences of patients and otherwise set standards for private health plans. These mandates are all likely to increase health-care costs and therefore private insurance premiums.

Those standards aren't specified in the bill and may never be debated in Congress. They are up to the discretion of the "Choices" commissioner -- who will, of course, limit your choices to "acceptable" plans only.

Your employer's health plan might not be deemed "qualified." In that case, your employer could be fined, and even prohibited from enrolling new employees until the commissioner is satisfied that the violation "has been corrected and is not likely to recur." More change you can believe in . . .

Faced with onerous new regulations and the possibility of heavy fines, employers might choose the simpler -- and legally safer -- route of dropping their health plans entirely and simply paying the new 8 percent payroll tax, which will be levied on employers who don't provide the government-approved health insurance.

In fact, for most employers, paying this tax will be cheaper than paying for the company-based insurance even at today's prices. If the Health "Choices" Commissioner's yet unspecified standards turn out to be sufficiently onerous, Americans could end up with single-payer health care -- universal government health insurance -- by default.

Perhaps that's the idea?

Faced with payments that don't cover their expenses, and fewer and fewer private insurers to shoulder the costs, expect even more hospitals to close and more doctors to choose early retirement or another profession.

But at least if they could find a doctor, the House bill would cover every American with something, right? No -- according to Lewin, 16.5 million Americans would still be left uninsured.

This is bad medicine, that will take an already ailing health-care system and render it severely dysfunctional.

Robert A. Book is the senior research fellow in Health Economics at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org), where Robert E. Moffit directs the Center for Health Policy Studies., NY Post, 7/22/09

Obama-The Messiah is Dying

AP-GfK Poll: Great hopes for Obama fade to reality

That was fast.
The hope and optimism that washed over the country in the opening months of Barack Obama's presidency are giving way to harsh realities.

An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.

Obama still has a solid 55 percent approval rating—better than Bill Clinton and about even with George W. Bush six months into their presidencies—but there are growing doubts about whether he can succeed at some of the biggest items on his to-do list. And there is a growing sense that he is trying to tackle too much too soon.

The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. Ditto for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.

On overhauling health care, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.

Add it all up, and does it mean Obama has lost his mojo? Has yes-we-can morphed into maybe?

"I think it's just reality," said Sandy Smith, a 48-year-old public relations worker from Los Angeles. "He's not Superman, right?"

Indeed, it's not unusual for approval ratings to slide once presidents actually get to work. They're pulled down by things going on in the real world, by people who don't agree with the ways they're addressing problems, by criticism from political opponents.

In Obama's case, the problems he's confronting domestically and internationally are legion, and his ability to blame them on his predecessor is fading. Challenges still abound in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unemployment, at 7.6 percent in January, hit 9.5 percent in June and is expected to keep rising well into next year. Almost 4 percent of homeowners with mortgages are in foreclosure, and an additional 8 percent are at least a month behind on payments—the highest levels since the Great Depression.

The president is deep into the debate over how to overhaul the nation's health care system, and people are nervous about how their own insurance could be affected. Obama's critics are accusing him of conducting a risky "grand experiment" that will hurt the economy and could force millions to drop their current coverage.

It's all taking a toll on expectations. The number of people who think it's realistic to expect at least some noticeable improvement in the economy during Obama's first year in office dropped from 27 percent in January to 16 percent in the latest survey.

There's been slippage, as well, in how people view the president personally, although he's still well regarded. About two-thirds now think he understands the problems of ordinary Americans, down from 81 percent in January. Sixty-nine percent think he's a strong leader, off from 78 percent before the inauguration.

"He doesn't know enough about any of this," says Michelle Kelsey, a 37-year-old student in Breckenridge, Mo., who gives Obama a three for leadership on a 10-point scale. But then again, Kelsey says, "Nobody could have done better."

"I just feel like people haven't given him enough time. It's going to take longer for the economy to come around."

It's not just Obama who's feeling the drag. Approval of Congress—already low—has gotten lower, slipping 6 percentage points to 32 percent.

Overall, the number of people who think the country is going in the wrong direction hit 54 percent in the latest AP-GfK poll, up from 46 percent in June.

That's not necessarily surprising. In years past, the public has tended to be more pessimistic than optimistic about the country's future. Recent exceptions have been short-lived, at the start of the Iraq war, after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, after the capture of Saddam Hussein and late in the Clinton administration.

Perhaps most troubling for Obama may be where he is losing ground. His approval rating was down 9 points among Americans overall but 20 percent among independents. Similarly, the increase in those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction came mostly from independents and Democrats.

Dissatisfaction among independents grew disproportionately on Obama's handling of a range of issues, including the economy, taxes, unemployment, the environment and more.

Independents are "the ones to watch," according to Professor Robert Shapiro, a Columbia University expert on public opinion. "The Republicans were more pessimistic from the outset. The Democrats are going to be more resistant to negative information."

Overall, Obama still can feel good about a 55 percent approval rating, Shapiro said, but "the fact that it is on the downswing is something to be concerned about. That's going to affect how members of Congress, and in particular people in his own party, may respond to him."

The AP-GfK Poll was conducted July 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. It involved interviews on landlines and cell phones with 1,006 adults nationwide. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

___

NANCY BENAC and TREVOR TOMPSON
Associated Press Writers, 7/21/09

ObamaLand Crumbling Before Our Eyes

President Barack Obama used to command sky-high approval ratings from Americans in the polls.

No more.

The President's job approval rating is down to 55 percent -- below the two-thirds popularity enjoyed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush at the end of their first six months in office.

Both Carter and the elder Bush were one-term Presidents.

Obama's inability to deal effectively with the many problems affecting the nation, along with growing dissatisfaction not only among rank-and-file Americans but also within his own party, signals trouble for the young, inexperienced President.

Democratic sources tell Capitol Hill Blue that party insiders are nervous and worried about loss of Congressional seats in the 2010 mid-term elections.

"Six months ago, we felt the mid-term elections would increase our party's majorities in both the House and Senate," says one Democratic strategist, who asked not to be identified. "Now, some are worried about holding on to the majority in the Senate and we're looking at possible GOP gains in the House."

The party in control of the White House routinely loses seats in Congress during the mid-term elections. Republicans seized control of Congress in the 1994 mid-term elections during former President Bill Clinton's first term.

Clinton rebounded and won a second term but Democratic insiders say privately that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

"Obama gives a great speech but he doesn't have Clinton's savvy in the trenches," says a Democratic consultant. "He's no Bill Clinton."

Moderate Democrats increasingly look for ways to distance themselves from Obama's big-spending policies, fearing a public backlash when the bill for his expensive programs come due.

For some Democrats, gallows humor is emerging.

"I was going to mention the Titanic," says Sen. Chris Dodd, "but I thought that might be a bad analogy."

A growing number of Democrats admit privately that Dodd's analogy may be spot on.

The only thing that worries the Democrats is losing power. The only thing concerning the Republicans is regaining power.

Where are the American People in all of this? Unemployed or dying overseas. Losing their homes and their country. Power-less.

DOUG THOMPSON, Capital Hill Blue, 7/21/09

Obama's Approval Rating Drops Below 50% on Key Issues Such as Healthcare

Public support for Barack Obama is slipping on the major issues likely to define his presidency, particularly healthcare reform with approval dropping below 50% for the first time.

According to a Washington Post poll published today, voter confidence in Obama on other key issues, such as the economy, unemployment and the huge budget deficit, is also slipping.

The president's overall rating remains strong with 59% of those polled generally approving of his leadership. Nonetheless that is six points down on a month ago.
The growing political fight over healthcare reform appears to be taking its toll on Obama's ratings as support for him on the issue fell to 49% from 57% in April. Opposition to his proposals rose sharply, from 29% to 44%, as accusations that the president's plan for comprehensive access to health insurance amounts to socialism that will lead to the government choosing people's doctors, more taxes and increase the national deficit have had an impact. However, health reform is still strongly backed among Democrats and those earning less than $50,000 a year.

There has also been a major shift since Obama took office in January against the government attempting to spend its way out of recession. At the beginning of the year, a little more than half of voters supported federal spending to revive the economy. That has fallen sharply, to 40%, while a significant majority now believes it is more important to avoid increasing the budget deficit.

The increased spending has also undermined Obama's attempts to portray himself as a new type of Democratic president. Four months ago, two out of three Americans saw him as careful with the public's money and a break from the old-style tax and spend Democrats. Now, the numbers are much closer with only 52% having such confidence.

Chris McGreal, The Guadian, 7/20/09

PERILS OF OBAMACARE: THE THREE BIG LIES

IN making his case for a gov ernment takeover of the US health-care system, President Obama is going far beyond the usual Washington truth-stretching.

Take a look at just a few of the most common claims:

"If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it." Even White House spokesmen have said that Obama's oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn't meant to be taken literally. The reality is that millions of Americans -- perhaps most Americans -- will be forced to change insurance plans.

First, the president supports an individual mandate -- a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want or are morally opposed to, such as abortion services.

And that doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be im mediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.

Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit.

In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan. Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage.

"You will pay less." The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will in crease overall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money.

But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more -- much more -- both in higher taxes and in higher premiums.

The final health-care bill is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That means much higher taxes, and not just for the wealthy.

If one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health-reform bill -- the income surtax, the penalties on businesses and individuals that fail to buy into the government health plan, as well as other fees and taxes -- the cost to US taxpayers will top $800 billion. New York City will face marginal tax rates as high as 57 percent.

At a time of rising unemployment and economic stagnation, that is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

In addition, the new insurance regulations expected to be part of the final bill are likely to drive up insurance premiums. And, if the new government-run plan under-reimburses doctors and hospitals -- as Medicare and Medicaid do -- providers would be forced to recoup that lost income by shifting their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the president's proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent.

"Quality will improve." Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost -- and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage.

Worse, however, on Friday, Obama endorsed the creation of a government board with the power to dictate how your doctor practices medicine and all but endorsed the rationing prevalent in nationalized health-care systems around the world.

In short, when it comes to claims about the wondrous new world of government-run health care, a bit of skepticism might be in order.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato In stitute senior fellow and co-au thor of "Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It."
New York Post, 7/20/09

What You Won’t Hear About Walter Cronkite

Meet the real Walter Cronkite
'Most trusted' newsman pushed radical agenda

Walter Cronkite is dead at 92 – but most Americans, many of whom considered him "the most trusted man" in the country during his reign as CBS News anchor – still don't know what motivated him and how he secured such an influential and lofty position.

He was like a grandfatherly institution in the early days of TV. People believed him. Uncle Walter wouldn't lie, America believed.

Thus, when he gave his opinions, they had impact. One example was his report on the Tet offensive in Vietnam, which is credited with swinging the tide of opinion against the war.

Even in his death, however, nobody has addressed how and why an otherwise obscure figure at the time was elevated to become the most prominent anchorman on television.

The story was told publicly in the July 10, 2000, edition of the Nation, a Marxist-oriented journal, in a report on death of Blair Clark, who served as editor of the Nation from 1976 through 1978: "Whether it was calling on Philip Roth to recommend a Nation literary editor or persuading CBS News president Richard Salant to make Walter Cronkite anchor of CBS Evening News, Blair had a gift for the recognition and recruitment of excellence."

Clark was not only the editor of the Nation, he was also heir to the Clark thread fortune, a Harvard classmate and friend of John F. Kennedy, a buddy of Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee and the manager of Eugene McCarthy's 1968 campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
He veered back and forth between politics and journalism seamlessly as an associate publisher of the New York Post, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, vice president and general manager of CBS News and yet remained a fixture in Democratic Party politics throughout his career.

Clark wasn't the kind of man who would promote Walter Cronkite for the most visible job in journalism because of his press accomplishments alone – and his press accomplishments were noticeably meager.

Cronkite never graduated from college. He had entered the University of Texas at Austin, but left to take a part-time job reporting for the Houston Post. In 1939, he got a job at United Press and covered World War II.

While working for UP, Cronkite was offered a job at CBS by Edward R. Murrow – and turned it down. He finally accepted a second offer in 1950, and stepped into the new medium of television.

He became the host of "You Are There" in which key moments of history were recreated by actors. Cronkite was depicted on camera interviewing "Joan of Arc" or "Sigmund Freud." But somehow, he managed to make it believable. From that entertainment series, he went on to be named host of "The Morning Show" on CBS, where he was paired with a partner: a puppet named Charlemagne. In 1961, CBS named him the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" – a 15-minute news summary anchored for several years by Douglas Edwards, thanks to prodding from a socialist activist who edited The Nation.
Just a few years later, his commentaries on the Vietnam War were credited with turning the tide of American opinion against that conflict.

"But Walter was always more than just an anchor," said Barack Obama upon his death. "He was someone we could trust to guide us through the most important issues of the day; a voice of certainty in an uncertain world. He was family. He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down. This country has lost an icon and a dear friend, and he will be truly missed."

After leaving his position with CBS, Cronkite's political activism and offbeat ideas had no restraints.
In 1989, Cronkite spoke to a dinner organized by People for the American Way, a group founded by Norman Lear. His candid politics surprised even that audience.

• "I know liberalism isn't dead in this country," he said. "It simply has, temporarily we hope, lost its voice."
• "About the Democratic loss in this election ... it was not just a campaign strategy built on a defensive philosophy. It was not just an opposition that conducted one of the most sophisticated and cynical campaigns ever. ... It was the fault of too many who found their voices stilled by subtle ideological intimidation."
• "We know that unilateral action in Grenada and Tripoli was wrong. We know that Star Wars means uncontrollable escalation of the arms race. We know that the real threat to democracy is half a nation in poverty. ... We know that religious beliefs cannot define patriotism. ... God Almighty, we've got to shout these truths in which we believe from the housetops. Like that scene in the movie 'Network,' we've got to throw open our windows
and shout these truths to the streets and the heavens. And I bet we'll find more windows are thrown open to join the chorus than we'd ever dreamed possible."

In 1999, he appeared at the United Nations to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalists Association. He told those assembled, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the first step toward achieving a one-world government – his personal dream – is to strengthen the United Nations.

"It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace," he said. "To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order."

Later, in an interview with the BBC, Cronkite described this new order as something that sounded like a militaristic world dictatorship.

"I wouldn't give up on the U.N. yet," he said. "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law. We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the criminals to justice before they have the opportunity to build military forces that use these horrid weapons that rogue nations and movements can get hold of – germs and atomic weapons."

He spoke openly about the need for America to give up its national sovereignty.

"American people are going to begin to realize they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law, and I think that's going to come to other people as well," he said. "It's a fair distance to get there, but we are not ever going to get there unless we keep trying to push ourselves onto the road."

Joseph Farah, WorldNet Daily, 7/18/09