Fourteen Lies

Ouch! via Weekly Standard:

President Obama has been perfectly clear. He has said that his plan for "health-care reform" would not cause any individuals or families to lose their health-care plans, would not be paid for by cutting seniors' Medicare benefits, would not bend the health-care cost-curve up (but instead would bend it down), would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, would not raise Americans' health insurance premiums (by $2,100 a year in the individual market) but instead would lower them (by $2,500), would not put the federal government in control of health care, would not require Americans to buy health insurers' product under penalty of law, would not cost more than $900 billion over ten years (and certainly not $2.5 trillion, like the Congressional Budget Office says it would cost), would not raise deficits, would not liberalize rules preventing taxpayer funding of abortions, would increase competition and choice, would leave what's good in place while fixing what's broken, would be bipartisan, and would be passed in an open and transparent manner with the C-SPAN cameras rolling for all to see. Would it have been too much to have hoped that the President would go 1-for-14?

Lies, all of them! No wonder his approval ratings are down.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi continues to pretend that this has been the most transparent legislation EVAH, Robert Gibbs says "What C-SPAN letter?", and 52% of Americans oppose Obamacare.

Tales From The Arctic Blast of 2010

When I got up today it was 37 degrees and now it's fallen to 31, which will be considered "toasty" by the time the cold front moves through. Cold for us down here, but nothin' compared to my friends in the north and midwest!

Since they canceled school today I'm taking advantage of the time to do a little cooking for the next couple of days. Right now I'm sipping some hot tea and boiling a ham hock so I can cooks some greens for tomorrow. Tomorrow we'll have greens and smothered pork chops. I've also got a rich beef stew going in the slow cooker for tonight.

When I went to the store this morning to get the greens, the lady that checked me out told me yesterday it was like Y2K all over again; people flooded the store like a blizzard was coming. She said, "You can blame the media for that!" True enough. It's their job to keep people informed and to give information on how to protect pipes and plants, I suppose, but is it necessary to scare the bejeezus out of people and send them all to Home Depot for generators?

It just seems an over reaction to me. Some of the comments on the Shreveport Times website are indicative of the fact that lots of other people think so too.

Ah well! I'll enjoy my tea, my dogs, and the smell of beef stew emanating from the kitchen. Keep warm where ever you are!

Charging Abdulmutallab

Michael Mukasey's OpEd in the Wall Street Journal is top notch reading today. Mukasey, a former Attorney General, laments the knowledge we let slip through our fingers by not designating Abdulmutallab an enemy combatant right out of the gate. What kind of intelligence has been lost, he wonders.

Certainly, Mukasey contends, he "was certainly aware of who had prepared the potentially deadly mix that was sewn in his underwear, who had trained him, where the training had taken place, whether there was in fact a South Asian man described by two other passengers who helped him talk his way on to the plane, and a good deal more. Such facts are valuable but evanescent intelligence. The location of people—and with it our ability to find and neutralize them—is subject to rapid change."

So, designating him an enemy combatant now, should Team Obama choose to do so, and they've given no indication that they will, wouldn't really matter all that much. Much of what he could tell us is already compromised. But, there is plenty he could still reveal and, as noted before, he has lawyered up. Despite Team Obama's assertion that we have "obtained actionable intelligence" from Abdulmutallab, there is still much more we could have learned.

In assessing the actions of the executive branch, Mukasey concludes with this damning statement:

There is much to worry about if they think that the principal challenge of the day is detecting bombs at the airport rather than actively searching out, finding and neutralizing terrorists before they get there.

But that's what you get when you approach the war on terror with a civilian criminal justice approach.

Abdulmutallab should have been charged as an enemy combatant for attempting to blow up nearly 300 American citizens on an airplane on American soil. No doubt about it.

Update: Via Memeorandum, Jennifer Rubin offers these thoughts:

There is a bizarre quality to the flurry of reviews and reports underway, as administration advisors scurry to figure out how to connect dots and not miss the next bomber. Might they start by getting the maximum information out of the terrorist that chatted for a bit to the FBI and then (with lawyer in hand) decided that discretion was the better course?

*****

If Mukasey is right, and I think he is, don’t expect the administration to revisit its own flawed decision making. If a shift in the disposition of terrorists is going to happen (at least so long as Obama occupies the Oval Office) it will likely need to come at the behest of Congress, which can, of course, pass legislation, deny or grant funding, and assert its authority to control the jurisdiction of the federal courts. If Obama won’t do his job, it is time then for lawmakers to do theirs.

Does anybody have much hope that Congress will actually step up?

Snow Day!

Oh my but I was bemoaning going back to work today like a spoiled child at the end of Christmas vacation!

Went to work anyway, had a good day, and was ready to get at it tomorrow with the kids! We had inservice today and our principal is a GREAT motivational speaker; he charged me up!

But the lead story on the local news all week has been the "arctic blast" heading our way. Tonight it's going all the way down to about 34. This is not all that uncommon in December and January in Louisiana. The forecast tonight is for "rain in the evening and may mix with freezing rain and sleet by morning."

They've had anchor-chicks standing out by the interstate talking about driving conditions in the cold and snow for days. We don't have any snow. Aren't really expecting anything.

The local news site has an entire page dedicated to how to protect yourself, your plants, and your pets and livestock from the freezing temperatures. There are pages of checklists - food you should stock up on, checkup for your car, and protecting pets, among others.

I mean, you'd think we're in for a southern blizzard of uncommon proportions.

They've already closed school for tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong -- I'll take the snow day! We'll have to make it up in May, but I'll take it. That means Friday I can go to school (in frigid temps), meet my new students for the new semester, line them out, and get going full blast on Monday.

So, tomorrow, another day of blogging (yay!) and I'll put a good pot of beef stew on to simmer all day.

Snow day!




Update: To put things in perspective, this just in from Steve's sister in Iowa:

"A winter poem. i'm sending this right after the weather man said the snow is falling at 1" an hour. i've heard we are getting all the way from 6-9". we are expected to have a high of -1 on friday w/ a low of -19. i don't know what the wind-chill will be."

WINTER Poem

It's winter in Iowa
And the gentle breezes blow
Seventy miles an hour
At thirty-five below.

Oh, how I love Iowa
When the snow's up to your butt
You take a breath of winter
And your nose gets frozen shut.

Yes, the weather here is wonderful
So I guess I'll hang around
I could never leave Iowa

I'm frozen to the ground!

Update 1/7/09, 8:21 AM: Current weather? 37 degrees, cloudy, and some light drizzle. Not raining. Not snowing. No ice. But cold is coming! I'm grateful for the day off, and grateful for the advance concern of my school district for everyone's safety. Both Shreveport and Bossier schools are closed as are many private schools, daycare centers, and the public libraries. But I just know those Yankees from up north are rolling on the floor laughing at us right now.

Back to Work

I'm back at work today so blogging will be light until this
afternoon. Talk amongst yourselves!

On the Subject of Pointing Fingers...

Via Reuters:

"This was a screw up that could have been disastrous," the president said during a meeting in the White House situation room, according to the White House media office. "We dodged a bullet but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals not because the system worked and that is not acceptable. While there will be a tendency for finger pointing, I will not tolerate it."

Well, isn't that special? No "finger pointing"? Isn't that what he's been doing himself for the last year?

The Good News and the Bad News

Argh! The good news is that the administration has finally gotten on the same page and conceded that we don't need to send Gitmo Yemenis back to their home country just now because of the danger of them returning to jihad.

The bad news is they will likely be coming to Thomson, Illinois!

Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall at the ignorance of an administration that continues to treat terrorists like common criminals and put national security on the back burner, ignoring the lessons of the past.

Via Fox News:

The U.S. will not transfer any detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Yemen right now, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

Ninety detainees in Gitmo are from Yemen, which is combating a resurgent Al Qaeda. A delayed return could mean they will end up in a federal prison in Thomson, Illinois, Gibbs said.

How 'bout this Skippy? Leave Gitmo open to do the job it was designed to do and has been doing quite well for a number of years now? What guarantees do you have that al-Qaeda isn't going to use Thomson as a "recruiting tool" as you say Gitmo has been?

Speaking of TOOLS....

Via Memeorandum

The Trouble With Yemen...

With increased attention on Yemen over the past couple of weeks, there have been a series of interesting pieces about the state of the country.

First take a look at this policy brief (pdf) from the Center for a New American Security. It's dated November 2009 and takes a look at the various problems facing Yemen today:

In the coming decades, Yemen will suffer three negative trends – one economic, one demographic, and one environmental.

Economically, Yemen depends heavily on oil production. Yet analysts predict that its petroleum output, already down from 460,000 barrels a day in 2002 to between 300,000 and 350,000 barrels in 2007 and down 12 percent in 2007 alone, will fall to zero by 2017.1 The government, which receives the vast majority of its revenue from taxes on oil production, has conducted virtually no planning for its post-oil future.

Demographically, Yemen’s population – already the poorest on the Arabian Peninsula with an unemployment rate of 40 percent – is expected to double by 2035. An incredible 45 percent of Yemen’s population is under the age of 15.2

Environmentally, this large population will soon exhaust Yemen’s ground water resources. Given that a full 90 percent of Yemen’s water is used in highly inefficient agricultural projects, this trend portends disaster. This confluence of political, ideological, economic, and environmental forces will render Yemen a fertile ground for the training and recruitment of Islamist militant groups for the foreseeable future.

The brief paints a grim picture of Yemen's problems. It also discusses the presence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen and contends that "it will become an increasing threat to the United States and its interests in the Arabian Peninsula." Prescient, considering the events of Christmas Day.

Several options are offered to help Yemen become a stable functioning state, to include engaging the international community and increasing financial, counterterrorism, and technical assistance, among other suggestions.

As pressure on al-Qaeda has increased in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Yemen has become the most likely place for them to regroup.

As we look at just how to adjust to this scenario, the BBC also has a piece worth noting. Jeremy Brown, writing for the BBC, notes that after the Christmas Day terror attempt, al-Qaeda in Yemen looked at the attempt as a success:

In a swaggering and ambitious statement, they claimed that they sent the Nigerian student onto the plane, and that he only failed because of a technical fault with the bomb.

For them, getting that close counts as the next best thing to a successful mission.

The fractured government and the rugged terrain of Yemen's mountains make it an ideal location for al-Qaeda. The attacks on al-Qaeda in December are reported to likely bring new recruits to the group as rhetoric escalates against Americans and the Yemeni government:

Making deals with tribes that have lost large numbers of women and children in government attacks will be very difficult.

Mr Shaea said that al-Qaeda in Yemen believes that American actions will bring it recruits.

"The United States wants to fight al-Qaeda here. It won't work, they'll make this a new Waziristan, exporting fighters all over the world."

A diverse range of observers, in Yemen and abroad, agree that a heavy-handed counter-terrorism strategy will create more problems than it will solve.

Brown also cites the crushing poverty in Yemen as a problem the country faces. His conclusion is that Yemen isn't yet a failed state, but unless something changes, it will continue to descend into chaos.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that Yemeni officials are publicly playing down the role of a partnership with the United States for fear of backlash:

As the United States ramps up its counterterrorism role here, senior Yemeni officials are publicly playing down the partnership, fearing that the government could pay a heavy political price for aligning with the United States and appearing too weak to control al-Qaeda on its own. The head of Yemen's national security agency declared over the weekend that the threat posed by al-Qaeda had been exaggerated and that Yemen is not a haven for militants, the state news agency Saba reported.

This is an interesting conclusion in light of the fact that several embassies were closed over the weekend out of fear of security concerns, not to mention the missing six trucks of weapons and explosives that ignited those fears.

And let's not forget that those being held in the bombing of the USS Cole mysteriously escaped from a Yemeni prison.

At any rate, it's clear that Yemen is likely the next hotbed of focus for our national security leaders. What is alarming, in a way, is that this White House refuses to accept responsibility for any of what has happened over the last couple of weeks. Major Garrett on Twitter quoted Robert Gibbs as saying "the president doesn't feel as if he shares any blame." It was the intelligence services fault.

Is the best strategy for winning the war on terror for Obama to continue to wage war with our own intelligence services?

The Washington Times has even indicated that possibly Obama has been too focused on his heath care issue to focus properly on national security. I'm not sure I'd go that far - I'd like to think a president could focus on more than one issue at a time. Obama has also been criticized for spending too much time playing golf. Bush received the same criticism.

In the end, we need to take a hard line look at Yemen and what is happening there. Janet Napolitano is not exactly filling me with confidence, either. This is not the time for a pantywaist president or an appeasement strategy. The time for bowing and open hands may be coming to a close.

It's time for a strong leader. Do we have one?

C-SPAN on Your iPhone

I'm a geek.

I just downloaded the C-SPAN iPhone app.

With this app you can listen to your choice of C-SPAN 1, 2 or C-SPAN radio. You can also link to their podcasts through iTunes. No video yet, but maybe someday!

This could be useful if Brian Lamb's request for media access to Obamacare deliberations is successful!

More Details on the Landrieu Recall

Red at Caught Him With a Corndog is posting more information today on the Mary Landrieu recall effort:

The citizens of Louisiana are granted the authority to perform a recall election by Section 26 of Article 10 of the Louisiana Constitution.

"10. If the recall passes, the public officer is recalled and removed from office and the office is declared vacant when the election returns are certified to the Secretary of State. The vacancy is then filled as usual. The recalled official cannot be appointed to fill the vacancy."

She has details of an organizational meeting in Layfayette on Thursday.

Previous Post:
Mary Landrieu Recall Petition

Have Some More Coffee and Read These Links

Here are some quick links for you this morning:

A must-read is this post at The Foundry regarding the unconstitutionality of the Nebraska Compromise. The Attorneys General of 13 states have written a letter to Nancy Pelosi in protest:

The deal is said to involve an agreement that the Federal Government’s taxpayers will assume indefinitely the full share of the costs that Nebraska will incur as the result of the expansion of Medicaid that is one of the Act’s effects. The result is not only preferential treatment for Nebraska but it also hurts the rest of us because the other States will have to make up the difference. Such preferential treatment is constitutionally suspect; it cannot be reconciled with several important principles incorporated in the Constitution. The Founders would not have dreamed of taking a burden that all of the States should share and allocating it to only some of them. Likewise, they would not have seen the spending of taxpayer money for the benefit of only one State to be in the general interest.


Professor Jacobson reports that Scott Brown is shaking things up in MA:

Rasmussen is the first major polling organization to poll the Massachusetts Senate special election, and the "pre-released" poll numbers show Martha Coakley (D) with just a 9% lead over Scott Brown (R), which would be consistent with other polls. This post will be updated with further analysis once the official numbers are released. [See Update No. 2 below - official results released - Brown within 2% among people who definitely will vote and has a large lead among indepenents.]


William Murchison questions whether or not Obama really understands the war on terror:

Why is the government decanting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab into the civilian justice system after he tried to destroy an airliner filled with innocent passengers? Why are we affording this enemy agent the legal protections that obtain in a land he wants to destroy? The administration is going to answer for this one, with volume turned up.

Andy McCarthy exercises some caution on the decision to uphold the conviction of Moussaoui:

The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and sentence of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Enthusiasts of the law-enforcement approach to terrorism will undoubtedly claim this development as more evidence that their strategy works. To the contrary, I have argued several times (see, e.g., here and here) that we dodged a bullet with Moussaoui — i.e., if he had not surprised everyone by pleading guilty, if he had instead insisted on proceeding with his trial (not just the penalty phase but the guilt phase), the case might well have ended disastrously.

And finally, Michelle Malkin is all over the upcoming health care debate, including C-SPAN's request that they be allowed to televise deliberations.

Obamacare on CSPAN

C-SPAN is trying to keep the most transparent administration in history honest. CEO Brian Lamb has written a letter to Congressional leaders requesting media access to the reconciliation of the two health care bills:

As your respective chambers work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills, C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.

You will remember, of course, that in January 2008, Obama vowed to hold all such discussions in the open, in public, and on C-SPAN. Much of the work on the health care bill has been done in private behind closed doors. Oh, we've seen a lot of debate on the floor, but most of the crafting of the bill was hashed out in secret.

Mary Katharine Ham points out the obvious:

For a bill that's faced a thousand p.r. obstacles in its legislative marathon, the coalescing conventional wisdom suggests this last effort to get it over the finish line may shape up to be another obstacle itself. And even if it works, which it very well may, the president will have to chalk up another chunk of political capital and another huge chink in his reputation as an honest, change agent.

I suspect Obama will be willing to give up a large chunk of political capital to get this behemoth through Congress. After all, he has said he'd accept being a one-term president if it came down to it. He may get his wish.

Update: Ed Morrissey doesn't have a lot of faith in Obama's transparency:

This, then, is transparency as defined by Democrats: votes in the dead of night, committee processes that produce strawman bills, and Senators scurrying from camera lenses to dole out favors and cash to one another.

(Illustration by Ed Wexler for USN&WR)

Obamacare For Illegals - Part 2

Just as I predicted back in July, the administration is beginning to unfold a plan in which illegals will be covered by Obamacare by ... you guessed it - becoming legal.

Via TPMDC:

Lawmakers who want to extend health coverage to illegal immigrants will not block the passage of the final health care reform bill so long as the White House offers a substantive promise to start pushing comprehensive immigration legislation this year. ****

Democratic leadership aides believe that a firm White House promise of a comprehensive immigration bill will be enough to quell any House dissent.

TPMDC sources have been telling us that members won't admit it publicly but they are ready to concede on immigration in the health care bill. Political aides in the White House have told key parties in Congress that President Obama wants to see a bill this year, and negotiations are under way for how it would be written.

A source familiar with the negotiations between Congress and the White House told TPMDC the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will demand an agreement from Obama that health care coverage for illegals who earn a path to citizenship will be addressed in an immigration bill.

Back in July when I wrote about this it was pretty clear that this was in the cards. In an interview with Katie Couric in July, Obama said, "First of all, I'd like to create a situation where we're dealing with illegal immigration, so that we don't have illegal immigrants," he said. "And we've got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that."

You always have to read between the lines with Obama; it's not necessarily what he says but what he doesn't say that you have to worry about. There was never anything in the original House bill to keep illegals from getting coverage; oh the bill SAID no coverage for illegals, but the provision to verify whether or not someone is a legal resident was shot down. A loophole was born.

Allahpundit's insight:

Newsflash for the left: Amnesty’s not going to pass in this political climate if it couldn’t pass in 2007, so either this is all an elaborate kabuki aimed at tactfully caving on benefits for illegals or the CHC is a really, really cheap date. As for the right, if this sounds familiar it’s because The One has been hinting at doing it for at least four months.

And here is what Michelle Malkin wrote in July (and she linked me!).

So, Obama looks right at the American people in numerous speeches and town halls and says illegals will not be covered under this plan. It's sort of like when he said you can keep your current insurance. It's just not exactly true. It's bending and shading the truth. How are we supposed to trust him? Answer? You can't.

Via: Memeorandum

Snow

It snowed at Steve's sister's house in Iowa.

Mary Landrieu Recall Petition

Update: Welcome American Thinker readers! For an update, see this post.

Via Caught Him With a Corndog, there is an active petition to recall Senator Mary Landrieu:

"On Dec. 29, a recall petition was filed by Ruben Leblanc of New Iberia, for the recall of Mary Landrieu. Sec. of State Jay Darden stated that he WILL accept the filing."

Kinda like chicken fried bacon, this limited time offer won't last. Citizens have 180 days starting Dec. 29 so get with it today if you would like to see Me-ry "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu hit the bricks before her service is up.

Go here for details and here to see the case for a recall.

If the story reported by The Dead Pelican this weekend holds true, that she used her vote for Obamacare to bargain for national democratic support for her brother's mayoral campaign, I'd say more than a recall is in order. We're keeping our eyes on that story and will update accordingly.

A Constitutional Crisis in National Security

Don't miss Andy McCarthy's article at NRO today about the constitutional crisis we find ourselves in right now. Here is a condensed recap:

On courts demanding release of detainees:

The courts have no more right to tell the president to release an enemy combatant than a president has to tell a judge how to rule on the validity of a contract. The president’s war powers are more than adequately checked by Congress, which could close Gitmo and require the repatriation of all enemy combatants tomorrow if it were disposed to do so. The courts should have no say in the disposition of alien enemy combatants in wartime.

*****

A judicial finding that there is insufficient evidence to hold a detainee as a combatant ...does nothing more than impose on the executive branch a duty to make good-faith efforts to deport the combatant in a manner that is consistent with American national security. That means finding a country willing to take the prisoner, and — here’s the important part — ensuring that such a country is a functioning, responsible state that can guarantee the detainee will not threaten the United States.

On the President's responsibility to protect the nation:

What is the administration thinking? As the intelligence debacle surrounding the Christmas Day attack shows, President Obama will be blamed for failures to take obvious steps to thwart terrorists. He has the constitutional obligation to protect the nation, and Congress is firmly in the grasp of his party. If he proposed sensible procedures for terrorists’ detention cases, he’d get nigh-unanimous Republican support — and Democrats would go along regardless of the Left’s grumbling. The Bush administration, through Attorney General Mukasey, tried to spur Congress to act, but Democrats turned a deaf ear. Politcally, Obama can get it done. Why doesn’t he?

On the Justice Department's failure to appeal bad judicial decisions:

These are cases involving jihadists trained to kill innocents. They are not the cases you compromise on: You take them all the way. If a district judge gives you a lunatic ruling, you appeal to the D.C. Circuit. If you lose there, you take it to the Supreme Court. Aside from having good-faith reasons to play out the string, this gives you months or years of time — time during which dangerous people stay detained while you have the opportunity to go to Congress and ask for help in the form of a legislative remedy to rein in the judges.

Why isn’t this being done? Americans are more than entitled to surmise that it is because there is a serious pro-detainee bias in this Justice Department.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

I don't think anyone would argue that terror attacks have stepped up in the past year. I heard the spin meisters on the Sunday shows yesterday saying things like, 'Well al Qaeda hasn't progressed very much if they're still focusing on conducting terror using airplanes.' I'm paraphrasing but that was the essence of it. Another said something to the effect that 'Boy we sure have al Qaeda on the run if they're resorting to sewing explosives into underwear; they're running out of ideas.'

It's a real stretch, to my mind, to find anything positive in the latest terror attacks, excepting the fact that it failed - that is certainly positive. Although, one could say that on one level it was a success because we certainly are terrorized now. We are afraid.

McCarthy is spot on when he attempts to hold the President and Congress responsible for protecting this nation. It's time they stepped up to that responsibility and setting terrorists free, or bringing them to U.S. soil, is not the way to go about it.

(Cross posted at What Would the Founding Fathers Do?)

Yemen Security Forces "Lose" Six Trucks of Weapons

I'm not exactly sure how security forces lose track of six trucks of weapons and explosives, but they've managed to do just that in Yemen which prompted the closure of several embassies, including ours, yesterday:

The closure of three embassies in Yemen was prompted by local security forces losing track of six trucks full of arms and explosives, say reports from Yemen.

France announced its mission in the capital Sanaa was shut on Monday, a day after the US and UK closed theirs.

It follows threats from an al-Qaeda wing linked to an alleged plot to blow up a transatlantic plane over the US.

******

On Monday, France shut its Yemen embassy, Japan suspended its consular service in Sanaa, and Spain restricted public access to its mission there.

It comes after six trucks full of weapons and explosives entered the capital, and the security forces lost track of the vehicles, according to Yemeni media.

Meanwhile, John Brennan continues to insist we will return terroists to Yemen and at the same time work plea bargains with the Panty-Bomber. If they can't keep up with six weapons loaded trucks, how will they keep up with returned jihadists?

The Veterans Foster Family Program

Via the Des Moines Register comes this heartwarming story - a program by the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs where veterans can choose to live with "foster families" instead of in an institution. The program is new to Iowa and the Register highlights a family in Winterset for their story:

If they weren't living in Joe Wymer's house, Vietnam War veterans Ron Marusek and Bob Fenoglio would be in a nursing home by now. Marusek, 65, has terminal cancer. Fenoglio, 67, has a severe case of multiple sclerosis. Both decided to enroll in a new federal program in which veterans can choose to live with paid "foster families" instead of in an institution. "They're awfully nice to me," Marusek said of his foster family, which includes local residents whom Wymer hires to come over and help. "They take care of you like you're gold. They treat you with respect and compassion."

The veterans pay the homeowner for services such as bathing, meals, laundry, and transportation to doctors appointments. Nurses from the VA make regular visits to the home to check on the veterans. Sometimes the visits are unannounced. For the veterans, they say it gives them a chance to be free and to live in comfortable housing. Both of Wymer's veterans were in Vietnam:

Fenoglio said he lived for a while in a VA long-term care facility, where he felt "enslaved" by rules. When asked how his life has changed in the foster arrangement, he typed, "I am free."

He controls his own money now, and he has his own bedroom, where he keeps a prized collection of black leather motorcycle jackets. He can sit in Wymer's comfortable living room, smoking cigarettes and watching whatever TV programs he chooses. On this day, he was keeping an eye on "The Rachael Ray Show."

Marusek, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1967, moved in with Wymer in August. Chemotherapy had left him bald and weak, and he carried just 133 pounds on his 5-foot-7-inch frame. He credits his host's cooking for bringing his weight up to 164 pounds. He loves Wymer's chili, spaghetti and homemade pizza. "And ice cream," he said. "I have it every day."

Wymer had already been caring for his aging father at home when he decided to participate in this program. He felt it was a way to give something back to veterans and he had the time and opportunity to give.

Some have concerns about the program, however, in that there may not be enough safeguards against abuse and exploitation of veterans. Read about that here.

The program isn't in every state yet, that I can find, but you can contact the VA here. The Des Moines Register article also lists contact information for the Iowa program.

For Wymer and his two veterans, the program is working like a charm!

(Photo credit: The Des Moines Register)

A Deal on the Table for Captain Underpants

I'm hesitant to get too worked up over this until more is known, assuming it ever is, but I will say that on the face of it, it doesn't sound good. Politico reports this from John Brennan's round on the Sunday shows this morning:

The U.S. Government is offering the suspect charged with attempting to bomb an aircraft on Christmas Day, Omar Abdulmutallab, some kind of incentives to share what he knows about Al Qaeda, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Sunday.

Asked why Abdulmutallab should cooperate given his right, as criminal defendant, to remain silent, Brennan replied: "He doesn't have to but he knows there are certain things that are on the table... if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways he can do that."

Ed Morrissey succinctly sums it up:

Now Brennan suggests they’ll cut a deal with the terrorist to get what they may have gotten for free otherwise.

It's true that he does suggest that a deal is on the table. I'm not sure what other read you could put on the statement "certain things that are on the table...". It sure sounds like a deal.

Frugal Cafe dares to speculate:

What does this terrorist deal involve? Guaranteed immunity, a new identity, a sweet relocation package so that Abdulmutallab can move to Massachusetts or Illinois, hook up with his bloodthirsty al Qaeda buddies, and start planning a bigger, better jihad attack on Americans?

Who knows? But this jihadi monster has lawyered up to the gills, so you know the deal must be fabulous.

The bottom line for me is that this was botched from the beginning as soon as Abdulmutallab was charged with a criminal offense. He should have been turned over to the military and interrogated as an enemy combatant. Lord knows Team Obama has made that kind of interrogation much less terrifying that it would have been in years past. As soon as he announced to the world that we would only go by the Army Field Manual, every terrorist on the planet began training for it.

We could have obtained valuable information from Abdulmutallab. As it is now, he is exercising his right to remain silent, a right that was bestowed on him when he came HERE to blow us up.

I don't know what kind of "things are on the table" but I do know if this guy gets sent back to Yemen or Nigeria, or if he gets any kind of special treatment at all, it is political suicide for the Democrats. I just don't think Americans will stand for it.

Via: Memeorandum

Terrorism Czar Says Yes to Yemen?

John Brennan is the new terrorism czar. (Side question - why do we need a "terrorism czar" when we have a Department of Homeland Security? ....oh....never mind.)

Anyway, Brennan is quoted this morning as saying that yes indeedy some Gitmo graduates will still go to Yemen:

About half of the roughly 200 detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay would be prosecuted in the United States by federal courts or military tribunals. Some would be sent to third countries, including Yemenis returned to their home nation, Brennan said.

Can we all just get on the same page, here?

Team Obama on December 12 says it's okay to send detainees to Yemen: "the government was gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness to handle returning detainees after months of 'intense' talks under the Obama administration..."

But on January 1 the story is "A senior administration official said Thursday that Mr. Obama’s interagency team had already decided quietly several weeks ago that the security situation in Yemen was too volatile to transfer any more detainees beyond six who were sent home in December. "

Are we or aren't we?

Hello? Is anybody home?


Related Post: John O. Brennan's Philosophy on Iran

Via: Hot Air and Memeorandum

Funny Sports Signs at Doug's Place

Doug Ross has posted the 20 Funniest Sports Signs. He made me laugh.

Go check 'em out if you need a giggle today. I also liked the "Traitor" sign. You'll see it.

Is There More to The Louisiana Purchase?

What exactly did Mary Landrieu get for her vote supporting Obamacare? According to Chad Rogers at The Dead Pelican, besides the $300 million payoff she boasted about on the Senate floor, she also secured national Democratic support for her brother Mitch's New Orleans mayoral campaign:

"It is widely known that Landrieu received $300 million in medicaid funding in exchange for her vote to begin debate on the Obama health care proposal. But sources tell The Dead Pelican that Landrieu's vote has also secured support for her brother Mitch in the New Orleans mayor's race, by the National Democratic party."

One of the favorites in that race to win a runoff spot, State Senator Ed Murray (D), surprised his inner circle by pulling out of the race yesterday. His explanation was that he's having trouble raising money. However, NOLA reports that "the most recent official finance reports from the candidates showed Murray had raised the most money, when the sizable amount of his own money he had put into the race was counted."

In addition, NOLA reports that just last week Murray "said he foresaw 'a rough and tumble campaign' with 'a great deal of noise coming from the various campaigns for mayor. I plan to stay out of that noise and discuss with you and your fellow citizens why I should be the next mayor of New Orleans.'

He said he wanted to be mayor 'because this city deserves better' and 'needs leadership for a change.'

Murray has been campaigning for the mayoral seat for over a year while Mitch Landrieu is a late comer to the race; he qualified in early December. This will be his third bid for the seat, a position once held by his father. Landrieu was defeated by Ray Nagin in his last attempt for the office in 2006. Prior to that he was defeated in 1994 by Marc Morial.

Bayou Buzz reports that after Mary Landrieu voted AYE to Obamacare, her poll numbers among Louisiana Republicans and Independents plummeted. Many Independents supported her in her last campaign against John Kennedy. At the same time, her brother Mitch's numbers dropped too.

It's a long time until Mary's re-election campaign, but it's possible that she may not run, or that she anticipates many Louisiana voters will not forgive her support for Obamacare. She will likely lose those Republican and Independent votes that put her in office. It has been suggested that she's helping her brother Mitch on her way out of office by garnering support for his mayoral bid.

Here is Hot Air's Green Room post by Laura summing up the race and how a little mayoral race in New Orleans affects the national scene.

There's Nobody Home

Erick Erickson has an interesting post at Red State you should check out regarding Obama's statement about the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan:

People tell me the President’s rush to acknowledge the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan and mourn the deaths openly, publicly, and via press release is a huge no no. The CIA and greater intelligence community would prefer not to have the attention put on them. Additionally, because the President took the time to draft a blanket statement focused on the CIA in general instead of individually and more privately focusing on the families of the victims, it acknowledges the CIA’s work in Afghanistan, acknowledges that the attack has an impact on the CIA, and gives the terrorists a new recruiting tool — “you too can cause America to publicly mourn the loss of their spies.”

To you and me this may not seem like a big deal. But I’m told this is hugely significant and shows just how out of touch the Obama administration is with the intelligence community. I’m told that no other President has issued such blanket statements of public mourning directed toward an attack on the CIA and thereby having the White House itself confirming an attack on our intelligence community.

Read the whole thing.

One amateurish blunder after another from this White House is simply incredible. Even the picture on the White House home page seems to be broadcasting the message: There is nobody home.

Full Metal Jacket Reach Around: The New Year Edition 2010

We brought in the New Year very quietly around here; in fact, by midnight on New Year's Eve, I was in bed with my two dogs and reading Empire of Liberty. Yesterday we ate traditional New Year's food and watched The Winter Classic and then a little football. Did LSU play yesterday? Hmmm. Must have missed that!

My campaign to go see Glenn Miller (yes, Pundette, I know he's dead!) continues and donations have been coming in! Thank you to those gracious and generous souls who have contributed!

And so, with that, let's get on to the bright and shiny new links for the new year!

I just have to start out with The Other McCain and their new site. What a great launch they've had! Stacy and Smitty have outdone themselves and I love the new site. Best part so far? The video! Love, love it!

And don't miss Carol's review of said video! Even better!

Left Coast Rebel also likes Stacy's new site, but has a longing for the old one.

Don't forget Camp of the Saints is also on Wordpress now.

Professor Jacobson has been doing a revealing series on Martha Coakley the Attorney General of MA who is running against Scott Brown. Interesting stuff.

Bungalow Bill has a question for "little r" Republicans.

Fishersville Mike celebrates his Instalanche!

Carol at No Sheeples Here has a poll going on, and you have to click over and see her great art that goes along with it! And vote!

Ruby Slippers and Another Black Conservative wonder what David Broder's favorite Kool Aid flavor is.

Gateway Pundit slaps Obama's hand for not paying attention to terror warnings while he was packing for Hawaii.

And related, Pundette notes Obama's denial that he's in denial. And I did LOVE Pundette's year in pictures post!

Donald Douglas points to our weakened national security these days as a campaign point for the GOP.

Wyblog suggests you make plans for the future.

Erick Erickson at Red State points to what could be Obama's biggest mistake yet. This is a must read.

Troglopundit has a quiz for you. I didn't do so great.

The Sundries Shack wonders who our REAL enemies are.

Bread Upon the Waters predicts hot water for Kathleen Sebelius.

Okay, enough for now. It's a beautiful Saturday here and I should probably do something productive. Clean house. Laundry. Get outside. Play with dogs. Cook something. Read. Speaking of reading, as I mentioned earlier, I'm reading Empire of Liberty by Gordon Wood. I'm only about 100 pages into it but I'm loving it! If anyone else out there has read it, or is reading it, I'd like your thoughts.

Have a great weekend, and to all, a Happy New Year!

It's Been A Good Week for the Terrorists

It's been an amazing week in the war on terror, and a mixed bag; from the Christmas Day Panty bomber to the decision to release Qais Qazali in a prisoner swap for British citizen Peter Moore, we're decidedly less safe going into 2010 than we were at the beginning of 2009. The Obama approach to terrorism has been basically to pretend it doesn't exist.

Charles Krauthammer sums it up pretty well in his column today:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

Incomprehension, indeed. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone thinks that a criminal justice approach to terrorism is the right path given the mistakes made in the past with that approach.

More Krauthammer:

This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

So this week alone, we've forfeited the opportunity to obtain information from an active terrorist about planned attacks, co-conspirators, etc., and we've released other known terrorists back into the jihadi fold.

Tell me again how this administration makes me safer?

(H/T: Memeorandum)