The New York Times on Benghazi

The New York Times on Benghazi

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

The “spin-meisters” are in full heat so here are some cold facts to dampen the bickering.

What we obtained from the Times was some very good information diminished by some not-so-good analysis.

 

For example, we now know that there was never any protest of any kind at the Benghazi “consulate” on 9/11 2012.

 

More importantly, we now know that Ambassador Stevens had publically arrived in Benghazi on 10 September on a routine visit and remained over for 11 September because travel on the anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks was considered unwise.

 

That arrival, it now seems apparent, set the events in motions. A High Value Target (HVT) was in a highly vulnerable location during a perfect jihadi political storm:

The uproar in Egypt over the “Innocence of Muslims” video was peaking simultaneously with the 9/11 Anniversary, and the day before, on 10 September, al Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri announced in an on-line video that Abu Yahya al-Libi [al Qaeda’s no. 2 leader and a Libyan] had been killed by the U.S. and called on Libyan Muslims to take revenge for his death.

That the situation remained calm in Libya actually made things worse. US Deputy Chief-of-Mission Greg Hicks in Tripoli described the video as “a non-event in Libya,” and official U.S. reports prior to the assault noted nothing unusual, an outcome that apparently gave the Americans in Benghazi a false sense of security. 

Dangerous warning signs were plain for anyone willing to see, however.

Ambassador Stevens had been specifically targeted for assassination and on the morning of 9/11 2012, a team was detected conducting a photoreconnaissance of main gate to the Benghazi “consulate” where the Ambassador was waiting. When the scout was approached, he fled in a waiting police vehicle.

 

As the Times reported, a police security vehicle, normally stationed on the street facing the consulate’s main gate, arrived late that night and then suddenly left a little after 9:40PM. Ominously, its departure left the street completely deserted (for anyone who served in Iraq, an empty street is a bad sign).

 

Immediately thereafter, a lone enemy scout cased the main gate one last time (a textbook tactical move taken prior to launching a deliberate raid). Seconds after the scout disappeared around the corner, the unnatural calm was broken when the attack was launched against the main gate by a platoon sized unit armed with assault rifles.

 

The enemy assault force quickly overwhelmed the inadequate security detail and the fates of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were sealed. This initiated over SEVEN HOURS of on-again, off-again firefights at the “consulate” and CIA Annex located about one half mile away.

 

In a sequence of events that reminded this Marine of his bad day near Fallujah on 31 March 2004 (when four Americans employees of Blackwater were killed in firefight there), as soon as the assault on the Benghazi “consulate” started to die down, an armed and violent mob descended on the site to do as much further damage as a lawless mob is capable of.

 

Fortunately this time, they looted and torched everything in sight but did not desecrate the bodies of the fallen Americans, perhaps only because they did not lay their hands on them.

 

Tragically, at around 5:00AM, during the last assault on the CIA Annex, an enemy mortar barrage killed Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods. Many other Americans were injured, some terribly. No one has ever reported the losses for the attacking enemy.

 

The fighting was over.

 

I have been critical of the manner in which we dealt with the attack and the Times report only strengthens that conclusion.

 

It was stunning to read just how dangerous the Benghazi was and how woefully inadequate the defenses were at the “consulate.”

 

Why we never gave the launch order to the in-Theater rapid reaction forces after we learned of the attack, I will never understand. Equally bewildering, no one knew how long the fighting would last and after any major attack, extra security is rushed in as soon as possible, even if it is after the fact.

 

There should have been a palpable sense of urgency up and down the chain of command to act and even if we had gotten there late then at least we could live with the fact that WE TRIED.

 

Finally, on 16 September 2012, Ambassador Susan Rice was given a report from Libya President Mohamed Magariaf that stated: “the attack was pre-planned.” That, as they say, was a blinding flash of the obvious.

 

Yet inexplicably, she subsequently stated: “…the best information and the best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a pre-planned premeditated attack, that what happened initially was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video…”

 

News Flash: That attack was pre-planned and they don’t get any more premeditated than the one that took place in Benghazi on 9/11 2012.

 

Semper Fi,

 

Mike

The Year Obama’s Statecraft Unravelled

Aw, the selfie… we know now that the world is much more dangerous now than it was in 2009, and it is set to get worst and the commandant is busy texting or taking a selfie… or some other self absorbed distraction.

The Year Obama’s Statecraft Unravelled
Grae Stafford, The Daily Caller (follow link to watch video)

Every week at The Daily Caller, special correspondent Ginni Thomas interviews people from across the spectrum, from grassroots heroes to some of the biggest names in Washington and around the world. In 2013 guests included Rep. Darrell Issa, author Mark Leibovich, conservative institution Phyllis Schlafly, and Becky Gerritson, who gave a human face to the targeting of conservatives by the IRS as well as many others.

Thank you to all who watch, share, and comment for making 2013 such a great year.

As a look back we wanted to highlight one of our guests from the other side of the world, a man from New Zealand who had some very strong words regarding America’s place in the world, Trevor Loudon.

In November The Daily Caller caught up with conservative New Zealand author and blogger Trevor Loudon, who declared President Obama’s statecraft and foreign policy stances “brilliant” — when it comes to working for America’s rivals, that is.

“I think his statecraft is brilliant,” Loudon said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller. “But, you’ve got to realize which side he is on.”

Loudon delved into Obama’s notorious hot mic incident with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev about missile defense — the incident in which Obama said, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand,” Medvedev responded. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

“What better indication of Obama’s loyalties can you have than that?” Loudon said.
Loudon said that for nations like New Zealand, the lack of a strong American foreign policy stance means that the geopolitical power balance in places like the Pacific is shifting, with China flexing its political will. As evidence, Loudon points to the fact that China, rather than America, is now training the Fijian military and displaying belligerence in the Pacific rim.

“A few months ago the Australian minister of defense was up in China for talks, and a top Chinese defense official said to him publicly, ‘Now is the time for Australia to choose, do you stay under American protection or do you come under Chinese protection? If you are smart, you will choose China, because we are the growing power in the region.’”

“He wouldn’t have been cocky enough to say that under a Bush or a Reagan or even under a Clinton,” Loudon continued, “but he’s cocky enough to say it now, because the bad guys of the world understand that your president loves them better than he loves your allies, and all of your allies, from Germany to Britain to Australia to Israel to South Korea to Taiwan are basically freaking out because they see this.”

Setup...

Hmmm, GQ sets up an interview. Does anyone think that it would have been a straight, give and take interview? Or, was it a setup? If GLADD wasn't using all their best NAS stuff then someone sure sent a transcript pretty quickly. This just re-enforces the notion that our media sources are corrupt.

Everyone knows where this guy stands, he sure isn't a shrinking violet… he was the guy that beat-out Terry Bradshaw. If you ask him a pointed question, he'll answer you straight up…. they knew  that.

Timing was perfect to deflect Obamacide issues and to get some GLADD headlines… look how quickly Jesse Jackson jumped on-board……… he saw where  he could get some Rainbow Coalition bucks.

The President's Special Trust and Confidence

The President's Special Trust and Confidence

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Every Officer takes an oath of office and, in return, is given by the People a degree of special and trust and confidence to carryout out their service to the Nation.

This President has foolishly squandered a good measure of that precious quantity and if, as a result, he loses his credibility with the American people then he will give new meaning to the phrase “lame duck.”

For a long while, the President walked the razor’s edge without harm.

What about an Ambassador and three others killed by terrorists in what was basically an unprotected Benghazi compound (by State Department standards) at one of the most dangerous places on earth? The Administration’s response: We will investigate, get the perpetrators, and claim (falsely) it was caused by a mob upset over a film next to no one had ever seen. Who cares? Where in the heck is Benghazi?

What about the IRS improperly targeting the Tea Party? The Administration reacted with outrage, promised an investigation, and (falsely) blamed it on a few rogue agents in Cincinnati. Who cares? I don’t belong to the Tea Party.

The “who cares?” list went on (Spying on reporters, NSA spying, Fast and Furious, etc) and was largely irrelevant except to the political classes.

Then came the Obama Care fiasco.

Who cares about Obama Care? Today, millions of American’s care and are not happy. By this time next year, who will care?  Tens of millions of American’s will care and they too will not be happy.

“You can keep your plan. Period!”

“You can keep your doctor. Period!”

All the deceptions finally reached a breaking point because Obama Care touched Main Street and what was damaged was the President’s special trust and confidence. The ability to govern has already been compromised.

Senator Marco Rubio, who spent enormous political capital working on a rational fix to our badly broken immigration system, threw in the towel – not because he lost faith in his cause but due to the prior bad-faith acts by the Administration.

Many of the House Republicans he tried to enlist were willing to work the issue. The hurdle he could not overcome was trust and confidence in the Administration. They did not trust the President to honor any compromise he opposed. They argued: Yes, he would cheer on the bipartisan agreement and he would sign the bill, but later, he would issue executive orders to nullify the key compromises that had made the bipartisan agreement possible.

In good faith, Rubio would not deny that the President might do exactly that if they voted for a fix to the system. Immigration reform died in late 2013.

One of the most damaging stories about presidential dishonesty is currently a NON-STORY and relates to this 2009 Inauguration Day statement:

“President Obama has committed to making this administration the most open and transparent in history.” Here is today’s reality.

Over an insignificant foreign aid policy issue, the White House made an argument in Federal Court that would have effectively ended the Freedom of Information Act as it applied to the President, a concept that should chill the soul of any civil libertarian.

The District Judge, Ellen Huvelle – a Clinton appointee, found the theory so repugnant that she termed it governance by “secret law” and made a summary judgment against the Administration. For details see:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0414-23

The deception is almost Orwellian in context. The Administration publically claims to be open and transparent while quietly becoming the most closed and secretive administration in American history.

The President repeatedly misled the American people, the day of reckoning has arrived, and the cost will be tremendous. When the President speaks in the future, who will trust him? The road back to regaining the confidence of the American people will be long and difficult.

Special Trust and Confidence is not simply a phrase to be uttered; it is the lifeblood of effective leadership.

Officially a joke!

Chilling abuse of power…

Officially a joke!
Federal investigators still not contacting conservative groups targeted by IRS
Patrick Howley, DailyCaller

More than half a year after the IRS targeting scandal broke in May, federal investigators have still not contacted any of the 41 conservative groups represented in the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) lawsuit against the IRS.

Though the FBI and IRS both launched investigations into the wrongdoing, and Eric Holder’s Justice Department vowed to cooperate with the FBI probe, none of these agencies has contacted the ACLJ’s clients to figure out what happened.

“It’s now been more than six months since the public revelation of the IRS targeting scheme. The Obama Administration — including the White House — has repeatedly promised that an investigation would ensue and that we would get to the bottom of this unlawful and unconstitutional scheme. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be happening. To date, not one of our 41 clients has been contacted by the FBI, the Justice Department or any other federal investigative agency,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told The Daily Caller.

“What we do know is the continual release of documents and emails by Congressional investigators clearly show that this scheme was well orchestrated, extremely broad, and politically motivated. Our lawsuit continues to move forward and we urge Congress to continue its investigation to determine the depth and scope of this scheme that violated the constitutional rights of our clients,” Sekulow said.

More than 28 weeks since the story broke, guys. Twenty-eight weeks. You know how much fun I could have been having during that time if I had been completely blowing off whatever it was I said I was going to do? You know how many movies I could have seen, how many parties I could have crashed, how much weed I could have smoked, how many women I could have gazed at from afar in the park? That’s a lifetime, man.

Cherish the time you have, federal investigators probing the IRS targeting scandal. Seize the moment, or else you’ll wake up one of these days disoriented and not even recognize the long, dead-eyed face looking back at you from your reflection in the subway window. And you’ll miss that time that’s gone by. You’ll want to have that time back.

Abject Surrender by the United States

I was just thinking, this can't be a colossal blunder. Our guys are too focused, too sharp….. bah,hah,hah… We may find that we need to "vet" our leaders to make sure they are on the same page as "we the people"… no really!

Abject Surrender by the United States

What does Israel do now?

John Bolton, the Weekly Standard

Negotiations for an “interim” arrangement over Iran’s nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that “no deal is better than a bad deal.

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.”  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.

Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club.  Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer. 

Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more.  Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges.  Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers. 

Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier warning that this was “the deal of the century” for Iran has unfortunately been vindicated. Given such an inadequate deal, what motivated Obama to agree?  The inescapable conclusion is that, the mantra notwithstanding, the White House actually did prefer a bad deal to the diplomatic process grinding to a halt. This deal was a “hail Mary” to buy time. Why?

Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran. Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem. And Jerusalem fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva negotiations. How, therefore, should Israel react?

Most importantly, the deal leaves the basic strategic realities unchanged. Iran’s nuclear program was, from its inception, a weapons program, and it remains one today. Even modest constraints, easily and rapidly reversible, do not change that fundamental political and operational reality.  And while some already-known aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are returned to enhanced scrutiny, the undeclared and likely unknown military work will continue to expand, thus recalling the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp because of the better lighting.

Moreover, the international climate of opinion against a strike will only harden during the next six months. Capitalizing on the deal, Iran’s best strategy is to accelerate the apparent pace of rapprochement with the all-too-eager West. The further and faster Iran can move, still making only superficial, easily reversible concessions in exchange for dismantling the sanctions regime, the greater the international pressure against Israel using military force. Iran will not suddenly, Ahmadinejad-style, openly defy Washington or Jerusalem and trumpet cheating and violations. Instead, Tehran will go to extraordinary lengths to conceal its activities, working for example in new or unknown facilities and with North Korea, or shaving its compliance around the edges.   The more time that passes, the harder it will be for Israel to deliver a blow that substantially retards the Iranian program.

Undoubtedly, an Israeli strike during the interim deal would be greeted with outrage from all the expected circles.  But that same outrage, or more, would also come further down the road.  In short, measured against the expected reaction even in friendly capitals, there is never a “good” time for an Israeli strike, only bad and worse times.  Accordingly, the Geneva deal does not change Israel’s strategic calculus even slightly, unless the Netanyahu government itself falls prey to the psychological warfare successfully waged so far by the ayatollahs. That we will know only as the days unfold.

Israel still must make the extremely difficult judgment whether it will stand by as Iran maneuvers effortlessly around a feckless and weak White House, bolstering its economic situation while still making progress on the nuclear front, perhaps less progress on some aspects of its nuclear work than before the deal, but more on others.

And what can critics of the Geneva deal, in Washington and other Western capitals, do? They can try to advance the sanctions legislation pending in the Senate over administration objections, for the political symbolism if nothing else. Unfortunately, they’re unlikely to succeed over the administration’s near-certain opposition. Tehran judges correctly that they have Obama obediently moving in their direction, with the European Union straining at the bit for still-more relaxation of the sanctions regimes.

Instead, those opposing Obama’s “Munich moment” in Geneva (to borrow a Kerry phrase from the Syrian crisis), should focus on the larger and more permanent strategic problem: A terrorist, nuclear Iran still threatens American interests and allies, and almost certainly means widespread nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. A nuclear Iran would also be essentially invulnerable, providing a refuge that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Afghan and Pakistani caves could only dream of.

So in truth, an Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons, and the proliferation that will surely follow. Making the case for Israel’s exercise of its legitimate right of self-defense has therefore never been more politically important. Whether they are celebrating in Tehran or in Jerusalem a year from now may well depend on how the opponents of the deal in Washington conduct themselves.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06.

Steve Hayward adds: Methinks we should call this for what it is: centrifugal farce.

and

Israel's Netanyahu Says Iran Nuclear Deal a 'Historic Mistake'

Newsmax 

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the agreement between world powers and Iran as a ‘historic mistake’ that doesn’t bind his country.

Israel has “the right and obligation” to defend itself and won’t allow Iran to develop the capability to build atomic weapons, Netanyahu said today at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.

“What was achieved last night in Geneva is not historic; it is a historic mistake. Today, the world has become a much more dangerous place,” he said in comments broadcast on Israel Radio. “Israel is not bound by this agreement.”

Diplomats said they had a deal early today, the fifth day of meetings in Geneva. The first accord since the Iranian nuclear program came under international scrutiny in 2003 eases sanctions on Iran in exchange for concessions on its atomic work.

Israel’s rejection of the agreement puts it at odds with its closest ally, the U.S., which led the efforts to reach a deal with Iran. An administration official said President Barack Obama would call Netanyahu today to discuss the accord.

Israel wanted world powers to oblige Iran to stop enriching uranium and dismantle an unfinished heavy water reactor at Arak that could eventually produce plutonium, materials that could be used to produce weapons. The Geneva agreement limits uranium enrichment under close monitoring and halts any further development of the Arak reactor.

“This deal will create a new arms race that includes the Middle East,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said. Finance Minister Yair Lapid said he was concerned that the accord means “the world is no longer listening to Israel.”

Israeli officials have described Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, saying all options are on the table to stop it, including a military strike.

“The Iranian regime is committed to Israel’s destruction, and Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself,” Netanyahu said to his cabinet. “Israel won’t let Iran develop military nuclear capability.”

Iran says its program is intended for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said yesterday that any deal Israel perceived as bad would increase the chances it would consider military force against Iran.

“A bad deal definitely increases the need for action,” Bennett said on Channel Two television. “If the deal gives Iran the ability to achieve a bomb within six weeks, we won’t be able to sit idly by.”

Alex Zabezhinsky, chief economist at Tel Aviv-based Meitav DS Investment House Ltd., said the agreement reduced risks.

“The deal reduces the risk of military action on Iran by the West or Israel,” he said by phone. “As a result, we are likely to see Israel’s country risk decline.”

Eldad Pardo, a lecturer on Iranian affairs at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said Israel opposes the agreement because its interim nature recalls the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, which never ripened into a final peace deal.

“If you reach very quick agreements on what is easy and leave the difficult issues to some future, it may take years,” he said.

Now with Iran, “there is a kind of temporary agreement that will lead to another temporary agreement,” he said. “This isn’t a first step within an agreed-upon structure of where we are heading.”

© Copyright 2013 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

Part Deux Point Une: Now You Get To Keep Your Plan?

Part Deux Point Une: Now You Get To Keep Your Plan?

What do you think is a viable solution to this mess?

Mike was asked to respond to this question.

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

This time there is no easy fix. The Republican bill just passed in the House is not a solution either.

First, many state insurance commissioners are not allowing the dead plans to come back to life. 

Why? 

Primarily because killing the old plans was designed to get those people to enter their exchanges. If they go back to the Zombie plan then the State exchanges may go broke. Secondly, it is a one year fix and then you are right back where you started, might as well suck up the pain now and get it over with.

Even if the State commissioner says it is OK then it still may be impossible. The cancelled plans fit along a continuum. 

If the insurance company still has a very similar plan in the exact same market then it may be able to offer the Zombie in a short period of time and hope the pool of souls returns to make it financially sustainable for one year.

However, if the company left the market, say your core business was in the Bay Area and Northern California and you dropped out of the San Diego area (i.e. you ended your relationship with the local doctors, clinics, labs, pharmacies, hospitals, etc) then trying to bring back that Zombie plan to San Diego for one year is realistically impossible.

If a company is somewhere in the middle, then time is the big enemy. In other words, you can do it but not immediately. 

An analogy could be cooking the Thanksgiving turkey and you have 30 minutes with an oven that heats up to 550 degrees.

If you bird was already stuffed and precooked then you may be in business in 30 minutes, if the bird is a big frozen block just bought at the store then you will fail.

Mike

Obama’s Massive Fraud

Obama’s Massive Fraud 
If he were a CEO in the private sector, he’d be prosecuted for such deception.
By Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO

‘If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.” How serious was this lie, repeated by Barack Obama with such beguiling regularity? Well, how would the Justice Department be dealing with it if it had been uttered by, say, the president of an insurance company rather than the president of the United States?

Fraud is a serious federal felony, usually punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment — with every repetition of a fraudulent communication chargeable as a separate crime. In computing sentences, federal sentencing guidelines factor in such considerations as the dollar value of the fraud, the number of victims, and the degree to which the offender’s treachery breaches any special fiduciary duties he owes. Cases of multi-million-dollar corporate frauds — to say nothing of multi-billion-dollar, Bernie Madoff–level scams that nevertheless pale beside Obamacare’s dimensions — often result in terms amounting to decades in the slammer.

Justice Department guidelines, set forth in the U.S. Attorneys Manual, recommend prosecution for fraud in situations involving “any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.” So, for example, if a schemer were intentionally to deceive all Americans, or a class of Americans (e.g., people who had health insurance purchased on the individual market), by repeating numerous times — over the airwaves, in mailings, and in electronic announcements — an assertion the schemer knew to be false and misleading, that would constitute an actionable fraud — particularly if the statements induced the victims to take action to their detriment, or lulled the victims into a false sense of security.

For a fraud prosecution to be valid, the fraudulent scheme need not have been successful. Nor is there any requirement that the schemer enrich himself personally. The prosecution must simply prove that some harm to the victim was contemplated by the schemer. If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended.

To be more illustrative, let’s say our schemer is the president of a health-insurance company, and that it was clearly foreseeable to him that his company’s clients would lose their current insurance plans if the company adopted his proposal of a complex new health-insurance framework. In fact, let’s assume that the schemer not only had analyses showing that clients would lose their plans but that he also had a history of openly favoring a “single-payer” insurance system — i.e., an unconcealed desire to move everyone from private to government-managed insurance arrangements.

Now, suppose the schemer nevertheless vowed to the company’s clients, to whom he bore fiduciary obligations, that they needn’t fear his proposed new insurance framework; under it, he promised time after time after time, if they liked their current plans, they would be able to keep those plans. And let’s say that, on the basis of that repeated vow, the clients supported the schemer’s reappointment as president and his proposed new framework. On these facts, the clients’ subsequent loss of their current insurance plans helps prove the schemer’s fraudulent intent. The schemer has committed not just a fraud but a carefully thought-out, fully successful fraud, replete with suffering victims.

The concept of fraudulent deception, like the concept of perjury and other forms of actionable false statement, often entails not only affirmative lies — e.g., the general manager who tells a baseball player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” and then proceeds to trade the player after he signs; the concept also commonly involves the omission of material facts (what’s called “material omission”) — e.g., the general manager who tells the player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” under circumstances where, unbeknownst to the player, the general manager has already made arrangements to trade him.

A material omission is the intentional failure to state any fact the communication of which would be necessary to ensure that statements already made are not misleading. The concept of material omission is a staple of fraud prosecutions. A good example is the Obama Justice Department’s ongoing and transparently political effort to portray financial institutions — as opposed to government policies — as the proximate cause of the mortgage-industry collapse that resulted in our national economic meltdown.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s minions have recently sued Bank of America and UBS. The complaints filed in court by prosecutors allege that these financial institutions defrauded investors in the sale of mortgage-backed securities by failing to disclose important facts about the underlying mortgages. Indeed, prosecutors asserted that financial institutions’ statements about these securities were both lies and, even where arguably true, material omissions. That’s because the statements withheld from investors the fact that the institutions well knew, based on internal analyses, that many of the mortgages backing the securities would go into default.

Recall that President Obama knew three years ago, based on internal analyses, that because of his administration’s own regulation-writing, millions of Americans would lose the health plans he nonetheless continued to promise they could keep. The president hid the data . . . just as did those financial institutions that his trusty attorney general has sued. Comparatively speaking, though, the financial institutions defrauded significantly fewer victims. Thus it is noteworthy that Holder is now demanding that the institutions pay hundreds of millions of dollars for their fraudulent misrepresentations.

Even that is not good enough for some prominent Democrats. Senator Carl Levin, for example, blasted the Justice Department for not pursuing a criminal fraud case against Goldman Sachs. Goldman had not made false statements in marketing the securities in dispute; but it did fail to disclose that it had shorted the same securities — i.e., it was quietly betting against the same securities it was selling. (I wrote sympathetically toward Goldman here, and Nicole Gelinas posted a characteristically smart rebuttal here.) Senator Levin railed at Holder’s decision not to file criminal charges, portraying it as an abdication in the face of behavior that was “deceptive and immoral.” Of course, if you want to talk about “deceptive and immoral,” Obama was snowing ordinary Americans, not savvy investors; and he was not just betting against the insurance plans he was promising to preserve; he was personally working to wipe them out.

The Justice Department is notoriously aggressive when it comes to material omissions by public corporations. Any public statement — not just in a required SEC filing but in any public context — may be deemed actionable if its purpose is to deceive the general public about a company’s condition. For example, as I’ve noted before, the Justice Department indicted Martha Stewart for fraud over press statements that did not disclose damaging information about her company.

Part Deux: Now You Get To Keep Your Plan?

Part Deux: Now You Get To Keep Your Plan?

Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

First, let me say that getting health insurance for the 30 million uninsured Americans is a just and honest goal. Screwing with +300 million Americans to achieve that aim is disgusting hubris.

 

This is such a mess and what the President proposed yesterday is no solution whatsoever.

 

Simply put, each of the 50 states can decided if they want to permit the old policies to be reinstated… Or not. So sad – too bad.

 

That throws the whole system into chaos, as millions will avoid the exchanges making the exchange cost calculations worthless and perhaps rendering them financially unstable.

 

Even worse, none of the old policies exist and will have to be rebuilt.

 

What does that mean?

 

In simple terms, to offer the old plans, two components must be put in place: (1) the health care networks and (2) pictures of the "pool of souls" who will use each of the networks. 

 

The agreements with doctors, clinics, and hospitals that formed the health insurance network for the old plans are GONE so they will have to be reassembled.

 

That means negotiating to put them back together again (if possible – think Humpty Dumpty) by getting agreements on what fees the doctors, clinics and hospitals will charge for 2014 – a tough and time consuming process that will likely never happen before 31 December.

 

Additionally, the pools of souls were disbanded, gone with the wind, wiping out all the historical data used to calculate health care usage rates and thus the cost of the plans.

 

How on earth are the insurance companies going to figure out what doctors, clinics and hospitals are out there, let alone what they are going charge in 2014, and how can they then gaze into their crystal balls to see what the new pools will look like in order to estimate the costs?

 

Health care providers rightfully pay expensive fees to get good actuaries to do this type of number crunching. Relying on their calculations (that may possibly begin in December), in a health care marketplace that has been ripped apart unlike anything ever seen in American history, is absolutely frightening.

 

Expecting something to be done for those who lost their insurance and need a fix by 31 December is insane.

 

Doctor Frankenstein and the lovers of Zombie movies may be thrilled (The Walking Dead Health Care Plan Lives Again!), but this is an unmitigated national disaster.

 

Where do I get my reasoning? I spent nine years on the board of directors for a non-profit health care provider in Southern California.

 

I am sick to my stomach.

 

Mike Walker

29 Palms CA

Now You Can Keep Your Plan?

Now You Can Keep Your Plan?

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

Setting responsible insurance rates is not like flicking a switch.

HHS sent out the guidelines that killed millions of insurance policies months ago and IN THEORY the insurance companies were to wait until the exchanges were up so the shafted millions would then enter the great and wonderful world of Obama Care (and just wait until the employer mandates kick in next year!).

That clever BELTWAY THEORY did not go so well, but going back is not going to be simple.

Had there been NO OBAMA CARE then the insurance companies would have been crunching numbers since the spring to get the new rates so they could have given them to their customers in October-November-December during the open enrollment period.

AYE, THERE’S THE RUB.

The insurance companies did NOT spend money or time calculating rates for policies that were DEAD. They applied their resources to calculating rates on OBAMA CARE plans people COULD ACTUALLY BUY.

If the President now declares “ALL STOP” and “GO BACK” to your old plan, there is a problem:

NO ONE HAS CALCULATED THE 2014 RATES for plans that are now to be brought back from the dead.

And getting those numbers will not happen quickly, certainly not by 31 December.

So the people who had their plans cancelled will be screwed again, the insurance companies are screwed because WASHINGTON has miraculously ordered the dead to walk amongst us again and we will all go through another period of pain and confusion.

And do the dead plans become dead plans again next year on 1 January 2015?

What a stupid mess!

Thank you once again, BIG GOVERNMENT!

Mike

Needed: A Different Sort of President 

Charismatic career politicians don’t make the best commanders-in-chief.

By Victor Davis Hanson , National Review Online (NRO)

The second terms of the latest three presidents have not been successful. Bill Clinton was impeached after his infamous lie to Americans, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

George W. Bush was blamed for the postwar violence in Iraq.

Barack Obama’s scandals — with his accompanying “limited hangout” denials — are ruining his second term: the growing IRS messes, the Associated Press monitoring, the NSA embarrassments, the Benghazi killings, the Syria bluster and backdown, and, of course, the Obamacare fiasco and the misleading statements about it.

What are other common denominators of this collective tenure of our recent presidents?

After popular first terms and reelection, they seemed to have lost public confidence and the ability to continue an agenda.

Do two terms wear out a president?

Maybe the hubris of getting reelected convinces our commanders-in-chief that they are mostly beyond reproach. Overreach ensues. Then the goddess Nemesis descends in destructive fashion to remind them that they are mere mortals.

In addition, the more talented cabinet and staff appointees often bail out near the end of the first term. At best, they burn out from continuous 16-hour work days. At worst, they flee to leverage their former high-profile jobs through revolving-door influence-peddling, finding new work in media, lobbying, consulting, and on Wall Street.

Boredom, on the part of both the president and the public, takes its toll. Clinton was an effective speaker — at first. Near the end of his eight years, the public’s eyes rolled when he predictably misled, exaggerated, or became petulant.

Bush was witty and sincere in repartee and impromptu speaking but often stumbled over the teleprompter. By the end of his eight years, his critics were publishing books of Bush malapropisms.

It is hard now to believe that Obama’s banal “hope and change” ever set a nation on fire. Certainly by 2013, we have come to snore when Obama for the nth time laces his teleprompted rhetoric with “make no mistake about it” or “let me be perfectly clear.”

One-term presidencies — or a constitutional change to a single six-year presidential term — make better sense. A single presidential tenure might curtail an incumbent’s customary exaggerations about supposed past achievements and the phony promises about great things to come that are apparently necessary for reelection. Much of wasteful federal spending and general bad policy derives from the reelection efforts of an incumbent desperate to appease or buy off the electorate.

In contrast, our culture’s heroes — in literature, film, and the military — get things done precisely because they do not care all that much what happens to them as a result of their courageous decisions. In that regard, Calvin Coolidge’s decision to seek just one elected term is a far better model than Richard Nixon’s two.

Age may also be a factor. We are a youth-obsessed Camelot culture that puts far too much stock in good-looking candidates who act hip, jog, or seem robust. Clinton was only 46 when he entered office, Obama just 47, and Jimmy Carter 52.

In a time of increased longevity, perhaps we should reconsider the advantages that six decades of experience might offer. Harry Truman (60), Dwight Eisenhower (62), and Ronald Reagan (69) seemed far steadier presidents. Their skepticism and perspective may have resulted from long careers of seeing almost everything — in addition to regular afternoon naps.

The youthful 40-something John F. Kennedy was impulsive in the same fashion as the reckless and similarly inexperienced Carter, Clinton, and Obama. The second time around, presidents in their mid-60s probably would not be so eager to paw comely interns or in naïve fashion boast that they could “fundamentally transform America.”

Can we also take a breather from the Ivy League?

When Obama finishes his term, we will have had 28 consecutive years of presidents with either an undergraduate or graduate degree from Harvard or Yale. We should have learned from chronic deficits, massive debt, and Obamacare that the Ivy League’s best and brightest are not always either. Truman’s higher education came from the school of hard knocks. Ike graduated from West Point and helped win World War II.

Reagan slogged it out for years in the cutthroat worlds of Hollywood and television — after graduating from tiny Eureka College.

Finally, can our next president have done something for a while other than nonstop politicking? The press caricatured Ike’s garbled speeches and Reagan’s B-movie reruns. But at least they did not go uninterruptedly from one political office to the next until being elected president. 

Youthful charisma, the Ivy League, career politicians, and two presidential terms may be fine in theory, but next time around can we take a needed break from what have become our presidents-as-usual?

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is The Savior Generals, published this spring by Bloomsbury Books. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Nuclear Iran

Hold onto your on to your seat belts... this ought to raise the hair on your neck!

Nuclear Iran

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Every post-1979 American President has declared that they will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and immediately afterwards they crossed their fingers and hoped the Iranians would not finish on their watch, as each knew that the only effective deterrent was the threat of military action, a step few, if any, were willing to take.

Today, even the fig leaf of “threatened” American military strike has been stripped away so a nuclear-armed Iran is an imminent reality.

Being someone who (futilely) talked up the idea of a regional containment policy, we have to start thinking through the consequences of the brave new world that is about to dawn on us.

Putting aside the truth that we have failed in our stated purpose, there are a number of other shortcomings, misconceptions, even illusions that America had held on to in the face of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Let us just focus on the issue of nuclear proliferation and the intended target of Iran’s soon-to-be nukes.

From a bilateral point, most Americans do not care because they know Iran faces absolute and assured destruction, a certainty that will discourage any rational actor.

But Americans should not assume that simply because a direct nuclear war is a very remote possibility then we will not be adversely affected by a nuclear-armed Iran.

Many Americans recognize the larger concerns, but too often from another narrow bilateral perspective: A nuclear war between Iran and Israel. Having written earlier about this scenario, it makes no sense to repeat its points here; save to reemphasize that Iran will cease to exist as a state.

The problem is that a nuclear-armed Iran is far more destabilizing than simply increasing the risk of a war with the United States or Israel or both, as terrible as that may be. A nuclear-armed Iran will redefine the world order in the worst possible way.

Given the lack of trust in the United States as a stable ally in the Middle East and the equally milquetoast messages coming from Europe, the Arab States are going to be forced into making very difficult and dangerous decisions.

For Saudi Arabia, the path is fairly straightforward: Develop their own nuclear weapons.

The other Gulf States, absent a credible U.S. containment strategy, will have to choose sides. An Assad victory in Syria will also bring Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan into play along with the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The entire region will have to side with one of the two power blocs or develop amazingly deft diplomatic skills to maintain even a facade of nonalignment.

And what of Russia?

It is also utterly foolish to think that Egypt would not be entangled in the regional nuclear arms race, but more importantly, Turkey will be forced to act as well.

The challenges facing Ankara are especially concerning. Should Turkey (NATO’s only Muslim member) remain in the Alliance and lose the necessary ability to act unilaterally when faced with nuclear-armed neighbors who are openly hostile to each other? Should Turkey develop its own nuclear arsenal? Who could prevent that move in light of a nuclear-armed Iran? What will be the response of Greece?

How will Sunni-dominated Pakistan react to an aggressive nuclear-armed Shiite theocracy in Iran on its southwestern border? Will India feel the need to expand its nuclear arsenal? How would China react to that outcome? How would China’s neighbors react?

A nuclear-armed Iran, given current flaccid international norms and policies, will inevitably kick-off a nuclear-arms race and create a more dangerous and unstable world.

That gets to the big question: What will be the new policy of the United States to meet those threats?

We have a lot of questions, very few reassuring answers, and things are certainly going to get ugly.

Mike