"Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head, John Conyers, says he doesn't understand it. It'll be passed by a Congress that has not read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?"
— Rush Limbaugh
Posts Tagged ‘obama’
Quote of the day
Posted by Richard on August 21, 2009
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, health care, obama | Leave a Comment »
Fascist medicine
Posted by Richard on August 20, 2009
Bob Bidinotto sees right through the Senate's "co-op alternative" to the much-reviled "public option":
Understand that the “co-op” would be funded by the government (i.e., the taxpayers). More importantly, to get admission into the co-op, insurers would have to abide by the new governmental regulations regarding coverage, treatments, premiums, etc.
…
… This is no liberal “retreat” from governmental health care. The new “co-op” is explicitly intended to be “a competitor to private insurers.” While ObamaCare would inject this new government entity into the healthcare marketplace, it simultaneously would:
1. Impose onerous, costly new mandates on private insurers2. Mandate participation by unwilling individuals and small businesses, under penalty of whopping fines
3. Outlaw any private insurers that refused to adopt the new government-imposed rules
4. Compel taxpayers to fund the arrangement
Eventually, inevitably, the only private insurers that could survive this arrangement would have to operate like branch offices of the Medicare program — simply administering government “mandated” coverage, services, treatments, medicines, etc.Rather than “single payer” socialized medicine, then, this would be more like fascist medicine: a merely nominal “private” system, in which a handful of big health care insurers and providers took their marching orders from the federal government.
The problem isn't the co-op, or even the public option. It's the rest of the bill. I've actually read most of H.R. 3200 (PDF) — admittedly, I skimmed much of the 1018 pages. I haven't seen any of the 3 or 4 Senate versions (no one has; only portions have been printed and released), but I suspect the fundamental features are the similar in all of them.
The House bill strictly defines 3 levels of health insurance coverage and loosely defines a fourth, "premium plus" level, and these are the only policies that private insurers could legally offer. That's not just to get admission to the co-op, as Bidinotto believes, but to do business at all.
Every conceivable aspect of how health care is insured, provided, assessed, and reimbursed is mandated in excrutiating detail. All of that, and the 4 points Bidinotto listed above, would be there even if neither a "public option" nor a "co-op" were included. And Bidinotto's conclusion would still be the case.
With or without a public option, with or without a co-op, with or without whatever other fillips they come up with or sops to squishy Republicans they propose, the Democrats' plan to "reform" health care will be an abomination, a monstrosity, an unmitigated evil that a free people cannot tolerate and must stop.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bureaucracy, democrats, health care, medicine, nanny state, obama | 3 Comments »
Sheehan still protesting war
Posted by Richard on August 19, 2009
Mama Sheehan (a.k.a. "Mama Moonbat") is going to try doing to Barack Obama what she did to George Bush:
Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq, will join hundreds protesting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at Martha's Vineyard where Pres. Obama and his family will be vacationing.
Sheehan will be arriving on Tuesday August 25, 2009.
…
Her statement was released from her home in California:
“First of all, no good social or economic change will come about with the continuation or escalation of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We simply can’t afford to continue this tragically expensive foreign policy.
“Secondly, we as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies. …”
Byron York noted that, judging from the recent Netroots Nation conference (successor to YearlyKos), most of her former allies won't be joining, or supporting, or even paying much attention to her (emphasis added):
… The meeting didn't draw much coverage, but the views of those who attended are still, as they were in 2006, a pretty good snapshot of the left wing of the Democratic party.
The news that emerged is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have virtually fallen off the liberal radar screen. Kossacks (as fans of DailyKos like to call themselves) who were consumed by the Iraq war when George W. Bush was president are now, with Barack Obama in the White House, not so consumed, either with Iraq or with Obama's escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan. In fact, they barely seem to care.
As part of a straw poll done at the convention, the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg presented participants with a list of policy priorities like health care and the environment. He asked people to list the two priorities they believed "progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most." The winner, by far, was "passing comprehensive health care reform." In second place was enacting "green energy policies that address environmental concerns."
And what about "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan"? It was way down the list, in eighth place.
Perhaps more tellingly, Greenberg asked activists to name the issue that "you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently." The winner, again, was health care reform. Next came "working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections." Then came a bunch of other issues. At the very bottom — last place, named by just one percent of participants — came working to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
…
… For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.
On an earlier York column about Sheehan, commenter RHO1953 said it rather nicely:
I do not agree with Ms. Sheehan about anything. We probably couldn't reach consensus about the time of day, but I have to give her credit for consistency. She believes in her cause irrespective of whether a liberal or conservative is in power. At least she's not a hypocrite like Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Murtha, Kerry and Durbin.
At HolyCoast.com, Rick Moore contrasted the effectiveness of the anti-war movement and the anti-socialized-medicine movement:
The left has been strangely silent about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since rainbows and unicorns came into power in January, but our favorite ditch person, Cindy Sheehan, Mama Moonbat herself, wants the antiwar left to mimic the Tea Party protesters who are thwarting Obamacare. The antiwar left griped for years and held big rallies, but never had the kind of effect on national policy that the anti-Obamacare folks have had in a few weeks.
Why? Republicans knew she and her merry band of Code Pinkos were a bunch of kooks and they weren't intimidated. They just ignored the petulant outbursts. Obama knows he's not dealing with kooks, but people who could really make an impact on his presidency.
Well, the biggest difference is numbers. It's clear from the turnouts at tea parties and town halls and the recent poll numbers that public sentiment has swung fast and hard against socialized medicine, and the anti-Obamacare movement has the support of the majority already.
That didn't happen with the anti-war movement. For years, they were clearly a small minority. Eventually, as the sectarian fighting undermined support and war fatigue set in, a significant portion of the population became nominally opposed to the Iraq campaign, but for the vast majority of them it was never strong, strident opposition — just discouragement, disillusionment, and disinterest. We never saw mainstream America joining the whackjobs at the anti-war rallies.
Anyone who's been to a tea party rally, on the other hand, knows that it's very much mainstream America.
Moore added:
Let's see if Obama is as tolerant of her protests as Bush was.
Oh, I think he will be. Most of her cohort have moved on, and the media are focused on the "right-wing crazies" who are killing health care reform and inexplicably failing to show the proper respect for our enlightened rulers in Washington. Sheehan will get little attention and pose no significant challenge to Obama on the war issue.
If anything, Obama may welcome such smatterings of dissent from the left. They permit him to position himself as attacked by extremists on both sides, and therefore clearly the voice of reason and moderation. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: health care, leftists, moonbats, obama, pacifism, protests, tea party, war | Leave a Comment »
The people are supposed to listen, not speak
Posted by Richard on August 14, 2009
If you're waiting to hear what the citizens of Montana and western Colorado have to say to their President about health care, don't hold your breath. What press secretary Robert Gibbs called a "conversation" in New Hampshire the other day was a decidedly one-sided conversation:
Much has been made of the chance for true, interactive democracy offered by the freewheeling town hall format that lawmakers are using in health care forums across the country.
But what the White House is calling a "town hall meeting" does not quite follow in the tradition of the public-driven forums that sprouted centuries ago in New England.
It's more like a press conference for the public.
In an orderly fashion, selected members of the audience pose brief questions, and the president elaborates.
And elaborates. And elaborates.
A look at President Obama's health care "town hall" Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., shows the president out-spoke his audience by a ratio of nearly 9-to-1.
Here's the scorecard.
Obama: 8,619 words.
Audience: 1,186 words.
That's hardly the kind of even-handed exchange of ideas that marked the town meetings of colonial America.
The President's attitude appears to be, "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
Contrast that with what sounds like an excellent, productive town hall meeting by Indiana Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly:
Two hours before Mr. Donnelly's scheduled arrival Wednesday in Kokoma, 75 people were lined up for 72 seats. By the meeting's start time of 6 p.m., the number had swelled to about 500. Mr. Donnelly's staff plunked speakers in the parking lot outside the meeting room and, microphone in hand, the lawmaker waded into the opinionated and skeptical crowd to field questions. With the exception of some brief asides about energy and the climate bill, the topic never strayed from the proposed health-care overhaul.
"I have not stated a position on this one way or another," Mr. Donnelly said as he introduced himself and welcomed constituents. He added that he favored some sort of cost-neutral overhaul that would cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. "I wanted to come home for a month and get a chance…to hear what everyone has to say," he said.
"To hear what everyone has to say" — what a refreshing and welcome thing for a representative of the people to do.
A number of people carried signs supporting an overhaul. But the majority of questioners voiced strong skepticism about handing more responsibility for health care to the government.
"I just want to know, when do these entitlements stop?" asked Ron Ammerman, a 35-year-old who has been laid off from his job as a splicer for AT&T Corp. He was the first to take the microphone and earned applause. "I'm responsible for myself and I'm not responsible for other people. I should get the fruits of my labor and I shouldn't have to divvy it up with other people."
Amen, Ammerman!
Questioners were chosen at random by Mr. Donnelly as he walked through a crowd of mostly older people, many of whom wore baseball hats and sunglasses to keep the setting sun out of their eyes. There were a few men in union T-shirts, but no obvious organized groups attempting to fill the meeting with questioners from one side or the other.
A few people spoke up in favor of revamping the current system, including one woman who warned of the power of private insurers.
Another woman said she was unable to wade through the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy to get her husband help before he died.
"Because of government paperwork he never got the assistance he needed," Lynnette Hammond said as she began to cry.
The anger that has settled around similar events in other states never hit Mr. Donnelly, who deftly parried complaints about too much government with questions about which entitlements the audience would be willing to sacrifice.
The anger didn't hit Rep. Donnelly because unlike so many of his peers, he was actually there to listen, and he gave his constituents every opportunity to be heard. He engaged in a true conversation.
"If [reform] doesn't work, it screws up an awful lot," he said. "But the other thing I want to ask is, of those with Medicare, how many want to give it up? That's why we need some kind of reform."
Aaron Williford, 35, a landscaper, said he was troubled by the amount of money the federal government was spending. "I see the federal government is like an individual that maxes out one credit card then goes out and gets another," he said.
Now that, folks, is democracy in action. Bravo, Rep. Donnelly! Good job!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democracy, health care, obama, politics, public opinion | Leave a Comment »
Health care rally in Grand Junction
Posted by Richard on August 14, 2009
On Saturday, Aug. 15, President Obama will appear in Grand Junction, CO, in front of a carefully selected audience of admirers and planted questioners. A short distance away, Americans for Prosperity and the Western Slope Conservative Alliance will be holding a rally:
Please join us for this important opportunity to have your voice heard and to send the President a message:
Hands Off My Health Care Rally
Saturday August 15th
10am
Lincoln Park
(corner of 12th and North Avenue)
Grand Junction, Colorado
Bring the whole family out and enjoy music and a great line up of speakers.
Bring your lawn chair and water. Enjoy the time in the park with your family. This event is sponsored by Americans for Prosperity and the Western Slope Conservative Alliance.
State Sen. Ted Harvey is chartering some buses to take people there from the Denver metro area. Here's the info from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers email:
The cost will be $35 per person.
The buses will pick us up at 9:30 at the Highlands Ranch Park and Ride at Dad Clark Dr. and Univeristy…Just South of C470.
Plan to spend the day. The trip on the coach takes about five hours. We will spend about 3 hours in Grand Junction for the protest before returning home.
Upon arrival we will join thousands of other protesters from around the state to line the streets from the airport to Central High School to show the President what Colorado thinks of his socialist agenda.
We want to have as many folks as possible joining us but time is short.
Please reply to this e-mail immediatley and let me know if you will plan to join us. The first 100 people to reply to this e-mail will be assured a seat.
Bring your $30 in cash or bring a check made out to me personally and I will pay the Charter Company.
Bring a sack lunch and we will provide the drinks.
Bring your own handmade signs to wave on the streets of Grand Junction!
To sign on, email: marty5539@gmail.com
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, health care, obama, rally | 2 Comments »
More audacity than hope
Posted by Richard on July 21, 2009
Dave Hannigan, writing in Ireland's Tribune Magazine, has a scathing assessment of Obama's first six months:
Welcome to the America of President Barack Obama. On the ground, it's a little bit different from the place you see on television or read about in giddy newspaper dispatches detailing how we are all supposedly enthused and excited by this historic administration. Tomorrow it will be six months and a trillion dollars or so in increased spending since he entered the Oval Office. What a short, strange trip it's been with a leader who's so far evinced much more audacity than hope. How else to classify a man who talks a way better game than he actually plays?
…
Obama escapes censure for the routinely enormous gap between what he promises and what he delivers because he is so historic and symbolic a figure, many in the media appear unwilling or unable to do their jobs when it comes to subjecting him to the normal journalistic rigour. Half a year into his regime, the absence of critical evaluation is as stunning to behold as it is potentially damaging to the body politic. What does it say about a country that the television networks appear more interested in getting him to take their star reporters on cringe-inducing tours of the White House rather than seriously examining his performance as leader?
To this point, the only consistent discordant voices have come from the extreme left in the Democratic Party, unhappy he's not imposing a socialist utopia fast enough and/or jailing Bush and Cheney, and from right-wing talk-show hosts. Indeed, the atmosphere of political correctness around Obama is so overbearing that any time a conservative pundit gets too shrill in their criticisms, they are conveniently and ignorantly tagged racist, and the validity of their attacks is then ignored. Meanwhile, previously reputable newspapers and magazines remain distracted, utterly intoxicated by the beauty of the first couple, the cuteness of their children, the newness of their dogs, and the romance of their date nights. If there's one person who's enjoying the blanket coverage of his celebrity (more than a dozen Time magazine covers and counting!) rather than his policies, it might be Obama himself.
The narcissist-in-chief can't let an hour go by without doing something for the cameras. However mundane, the crews are wheeled out to capture the moment. With his love of the limelight and penchant for long-winded speeches laden with generalisations and thick with platitudes, it's like having Bono as leader of the free world. That bad.
That's just a taste. Read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: obama, politics | Leave a Comment »
Gag gift of the year
Posted by Richard on July 15, 2009
Talk about a gag gift — this one should make even Obama fans gag. It's further evidence of the decline of Western Civilization and may well indicate that the end times are near. Check it out. But don't you dare reward these bozos by ordering one.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bad taste, obama | Leave a Comment »
Quote of the year?
Posted by Richard on July 13, 2009
I'm not familiar with Burt Prelutsky, a columnist at Townhall.com. But my friend David B. just forwarded me an email from cousin Bob suggesting that the following quote, from Prelutsky's June 12 column, is a contender for quote of the year:
On a more serious front, I sincerely hope that when the president goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran.
So far, that's got my vote. And I may have to add Prelutsky's columns to my (already all to long) reading list.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: iran, israel, mental health, obama | Leave a Comment »
Polls show people are waking up
Posted by Richard on July 10, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Approval Index is at -7 today. The index is calculated from Rasmussen's daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely voters by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove (37%) from the number who strongly approve (30%) of the President's performance. Overall, approval still has a slight edge (51% – 48%), but it's safe to say the honeymoon is over.
Rasmussen's recent Trust on Issues polling should give Democrats pause:
Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.
Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.
…
Most voters (52%) now trust Republicans more on the issue of taxes, also the highest level found in over two years. Only 36% trust Democrats more on taxes. …
…
Republicans also edge out Democrats on government ethics and corruption for the second straight month, 34% to 33%. In June, the GOP held a six-point advantage on the issue.
Also for the first time in over two years, Republicans lead Democrats on the issue of Social Security 42% to 37%. Democrats held a six-point lead on the issue last month, and the parties were tied in April.
Democrats have also seen their leads shrink on two of the party’s strong points, health care and education. The party holds a four-point lead on health care, down from 18 points in May. The Democrats’ advantage on the issue is the smallest found in over two years.
Maybe most Americans aren't ready to embrace the Democrats' headlong rush toward socialism and a massively more powerful, pervasive, and expensive government. One can only hope.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, obama, polls | Leave a Comment »
Appalled and outraged … at last
Posted by Richard on June 23, 2009
More than a week after every major European leader (aren't we supposed to take our cues from the Europeans?), President Obama has finally strongly condemned the brutal repression of dissent in Iran. He's ten days late, but better late than never:
After days of criticism from Republicans, Mr. Obama opened a White House news conference saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the threats and confrontations in the streets of the Iranian capital. He declined to confirm whether a U.S. offer of direct talks with Iran will still stand, instead saying he would wait to see how the postelection crisis there "plays itself out."
"In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice," Mr. Obama said. "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."
Very good, Mr. President. Very good indeed. Now why was that so difficult?
It wasn't as forceful as Reagan's support of the Solidarity movement in 1981, but it's a start. Now if only the Iranian people had a Lech Walesa to lead them instead of that mullah-approved sorry excuse for a "reform candidate," Mousavi.
UPDATE: The Spirit of Man and Foundation for Democracy in Iran (June 23, Update 1) had very different reactions than mine. I wasn't aware that Iranian diplomats had been invited to an Independence Day barbecue at the White House and that the invitation still stands. Now I'm appalled. I take back my mild praise — it appears to be undeserved.
UPDATE 2 (6/24): The Independence Day invitation wasn't to a White House event, but to numerous July 4th events at American embassies and consulates around the world. Apparently faced with growing outrage and disbelief, the White House has finally rescinded the invitation. It wasn't exactly an act of great moral courage, since exactly zero Iranian diplomats had accepted the invitation.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democracy, freedom, human rights, iran, obama, oppression | Leave a Comment »
Wright blames “them Jews”
Posted by Richard on June 10, 2009
President Obama's "role model and spiritual mentor" for twenty years, the man who helped shape Obama's world-view and inspired The Audacity of Hope, is back in the news. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright told the Newport News, VA, Daily Press that he knows why Obama hasn't been in touch lately (emphasis added):
Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. …
"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. … I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."
Wright was unrepentant about the hateful and divisive sermons that surfaced during the campaign (giving us soundbites like "God damn America" and "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color") and denied that he had any regrets:
"Regret for what… that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years?
"Regret for preaching like I've been preaching for 50 years? Absolutely none," Wright said.
So Wright maintains that he's been preaching the same way for 20-50 years, huh? But I recall Obama insisting that he never — well, hardly ever — heard Wright say anything hateful, offensive, or inappropriate during his twenty-year association.
Maybe Obama just never really listened (narcissists tend not to be good listeners).
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: antisemitism, demagoguery, jeremiah wright, obama | Leave a Comment »
Chrysler deal lives, Rule of Law is dead
Posted by Richard on June 10, 2009
This is terrible news. The Supreme Court has turned its back on Chrysler's secured creditors:
In a victory for the Obama administration driving the restructuring of bankrupt Chrysler, the court denied a request from Indiana pension funds to delay the sale to a group led by Fiat, a union-aligned trust and the U.S. and Canadian governments.
The White House welcomed the high court's action.
…
The Supreme Court decision followed a one-day stay issued by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that prevented the Chrysler/Fiat deal from closing on Monday as planned. The Fiat option was the only one pursued to save Chrysler from collapse.
The pension funds said the bankruptcy and appeals courts are moving too fast and contended that Chrysler's sale would unlawfully reward unsecured creditors ahead of secured lenders.
They also said that the plan amounted to an illegal reorganization and that the Treasury Department overstepped its legal authority by using financial bailout funds for Chrysler when Congress had intended the money for banks.
The Treasury has dedicated more than $12 billion for Chrysler and roughly $50 billion for GM as part of the government's bailout of stricken U.S. automakers.
From now on, whenever Tim Geithner and Barack Obama shout "It's a crisis! We have to act right now!" they're free to shred existing contracts, stiff secured creditors, and redistribute to their friends what's rightfully owed those creditors. So long, Rule of Law; hello, Peronism.
So tell me, are you more or less likely to invest in corporate bonds knowing that Washington can wipe you out or give you pennies on the dollar with a wave of the hand?
What about Treasuries? This administration has now demonstrated that it has no respect for the contractual obligations entered into by others — and the Supremes have decided that it's expedient not to stand in their way. Does that make you more or less confident that the government will stand behind its own debt obligations? How do you think it makes the Chinese and Europeans feel about that?
This is a very sad day. Our president is a lean, cool, charismatic version of Hugo Chavez, and he's turning this country into a banana republic. And no one dares to stand in his way.
I'm disgusted.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: constitution, justice, law, obama, supreme court | 1 Comment »
Bowing to the Saudis
Posted by Richard on June 5, 2009
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann recalled the fuss a couple of months ago over whether President Obama bowed to King Abdullah (I think it's clear that he did, but judge for yourself) and argued that he's really bowing to the Saudis on his current Mideast trip:
First, he is bypassing Israel. Visiting the Middle East and not going to Israel would be like touring North America and omitting a stop in the United States. It only makes sense if you interpret it as a deliberate slap in the face of Jerusalem and a statement to the Arab world that America's pro-Israeli policy is changing.
But as he goes to Saudi Arabia, the United States State Department, headed by Mrs. Hillary Clinton, has announced that it has accepted the ground rules for media coverage of the Obama visit to the royal family and its domain. Reporters will only be allowed to cover the actual meetings between the Saudis and Obama and will not be permitted to visit the rest of the country or report on anything else they see during the trip. Those reporters who violate these terms are subject to arrest and imprisonment by the Saudi government!!
Hillary and Obama accepted these terms.
Since when does the U.S. government act as the assistant to the Saudi monarchy in charge of controlling the media? And since when would an American president permit this shackling of the media and still proceed with the diplomatic visit without a murmur of protest?
Since when? Since Obama became president determined to appease Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and all of the extremists while slighting Israel and turning his back on democracy.
Diana West found confirmation at Time magazine's Swampland blog, where Michael Scherer published the instructions he received from the State Department:
The Saudi government is permitting journalists accompanying President Obama entry into the country without a visa or the usual customs procedures. While in Saudi Arabia, therefore, journalists are expressly prohibited from leaving the hotel or engaging in any journalistic activities outside of coverage of the POTUS visit. Those who do so risk arrest and detention by Saudi authorities.
Disgusting.
But wait! West noted that Scherer had updated his post with the following:
Qorvis Communications, which represents the Saudi Government in the United States, emailed reporters Monday night with an statement saying the announcement of restrictions, which was sent from the State Department, is incorrect. The Qorvis email says that the Saudi Ambassador has said journalists can get visas and will be free to go wherever they would like. I am not yet sure the source of the confusion. Will update when I know.
If that's true, it suggests that folks at the State Dept. are eagerly embracing even more dhimmitude than the Saudis have asked for. No less disgusting. (And by the way, I'm certain that most American journalists are decidedly not "free to go wherever they would like" — non-Muslims who enter Mecca or Medina can be put to death.)
But wait! Now it gets weird. I personally saw the above update on Scherer's post early this morning. I just returned to the post to link to it, and the update is gone (the original post remains). Is it just a glitch? Or did Scherer or Time determine that the Qorvis claim was questionable or false? If so, shouldn't there be another update explaining?
For that matter, isn't this kind of kowtowing to medieval autocrats worthy of being reported in the news, not just noted in a blog post that almost no one will see?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: appeasement, censorship, dhimmitude, journalism, media, obama, saudis | Leave a Comment »