Romney’s vision includes strengthening our military and championing free trade working with nations around the world who are committed to free enterprise and helping those who share our values.

When asked if recent events in the Middle East had changed his outlook on supporting the Arab Spring, Obama responded: “Well, I’d said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change.  I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal right, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance.   But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207861/Obama-describes-wave-Middle-East-violence-murder-U-S-ambassador-Libya-bumps-road.html

A coordinated military maneuver, confirmed by the head of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center as a terrorist attack, that employed rocket propelled grenades and other heavy weapons, which was launched on the anniversary on 9/11 against an American embassy that directly led to the death of four Americans, including an ambassador, is a “bump in the road”?

During the interview, Obama admitted that his campaign ads had made mistakes, but somehow, CBS News didn’t find that piece of information newsworthy enough to share with their viewers.

When asked if he was disturbed by fact checkers proving assertions in his ads were untrue, Obama responded:  ”Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, are there mistakes that are made, areas where there is no doubt somebody could dispute how we are presenting things? You know, that happens in politics.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-doesnt-air-obama-admitting-mistakes-campaign-ads_652973.html

That happens in politics when a campaign cannot run on its record in office, is so desperate to win that it deems it necessary to employ every long used dirty “progressive” smear tactic and suffers from a severe shortage of ethics, morals and socially redeeming qualities.

Remember when the United States was unquestionably Israel’s strongest ally?  Not anymore.  According to Obama, Israel is merely “one of our closest allies in the region”.

Since his inauguration, Obama has attempted to appease the Islamist world with an “even-handed” approach.  Now Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has serious doubts about American resolve to stand behind Israel.

For his part, Obama admitted to viewing Netanyahu’s requests for the U.S. to take a harder stance against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as “noise” he must ignore when making American security decisions.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/09/24/obama-israel-closest-allies-region/

Is it sheer coincidence that the exact same word was used to describe Israel by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?   “I have spoken about this topic at length, previously. We generally speaking do not take very seriously the issue of the Zionists and the possible dangers emanating from them. Of course they would love to find a way for their own salvation by making a lot of noise and to raise stakes in order to save themselves. But I do not believe they will succeed. Iran is also a very well recognized country and her defensive powers are very clear.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-refers-israel-concern-over-iran-noise_652967.html

Is this any way for America to conduct foreign policy?  Does having cities in twenty different countries descend into weeks of anti-American violence and murder sound like a “bump in the road” or more like just cause for alarm?  Does treating long-time ally Israel like they are simply “one of our closest allies in the region” sound like a recipe for successfully enlisting new allies in the future?  Is this what Americans view as making America safer?  Is this what Americans see as elevating America’s standing in the world view?

Is it accidental that a large number of Americans who are currently engaged in early voting are oblivious to this information?

America deserves better than this, does it not?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/to-obama-mid-east-violence-and-murders-bumps-in-the-road-israel-noise/

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens (photo: usembassy.gov)

.

A Libyan official has told the Reuters news agency, ”The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them.”

When asked about the report, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told Fox News that they have no information at this time about the report.

The U.S. ambassador to Libya is J. Christopher Stevens, and he became ambassador to Libya in May 2012.

His duties as Ambassador – according to his biography on USEmbassy.gov – were defined as: “As the President’s representative, his job is to develop a strong, mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Libya.”

——

Libyan Interim President Mohammed el-Megarif

UPDATE: Libyan Interim President Apologizes To U.S., and American People

Libya’s interim president, Mohammed el-Megarif, has issued an apology to the United States, and the American people, for the attacks on the US Consulate that resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US Embassy staff.

“We extend our apology to America, the American people and the whole world,” he said.

El-Megarif called the attack “cowardly” and sent condolences to the families of those who has been killed.

The Interim President told reporters that he vows to bring to justice those responsible for the attack and murders, and that he wants relations between Libya and the US to remain close.

—–

President Barack Obama

UPDATE: PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASES STATEMENT:

Statement by the President on the Attack in Benghazi

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

This Post will continue to be updated as more information becomes available.

———

UPDATE: Statement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack

It is with profound sadness that I share the news of the death of four American personnel in Benghazi, Libya yesterday. Among them were United States Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Information Management Officer, Sean Smith. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals. Our hearts go out to all their families and colleagues.

A 21 year veteran of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Stevens died last night from injuries he sustained in the attack on our office in Benghazi.

I had the privilege of swearing in Chris for his post in Libya only a few months ago. He spoke eloquently about his passion for service, for diplomacy and for the Libyan people. This assignment was only the latest in his more than two decades of dedication to advancing closer ties with the people of the Middle East and North Africa which began as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco. As the conflict in Libya unfolded, Chris was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi. He risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation. He spent every day since helping to finish the work that he started. Chris was committed to advancing America’s values and interests, even when that meant putting himself in danger.

Sean Smith was a husband and a father of two, who joined the Department ten years ago. Like Chris, Sean was one of our best. Prior to arriving in Benghazi, he served in Baghdad, Pretoria, Montreal, and most recently The Hague.

All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

America’s diplomats and development experts stand on the front lines every day for our country. We are honored by the service of each and every one of them.

This Post will continue to be updated as more information becomes available.

———

UPDATE: ROMNEY RELEASES STATEMENT

2012 Republican Candidate for President Mitt Romney (AP)

GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has released a statement about the Libyan Embassy attack:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.  It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

—–

UPDATE:

Here is the film that sparked the riots and outrage in the Islamic world:

http://youtu.be/4sQPRtS2h7k

This Post will continue to be updated as more information becomes available.

___

Video courtesy of CNN.

Yep, American forces in Afghanistan until 2024 – that is, if some Afghan leaders get their way.

The US is negotiating a deal with the Afghan government, among others, to determine just how long our troops will remain in the country of Afghanistan.  According to The Daily Telegraph, the current agreement would allow more than just military trainers to stay for training the Afghan army and police, but special forces soldiers and air power would remain as well.

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Mr Karzai’s top security adviser, told The Daily Telegraph “If [the Americans] provide us weapons and equipment, they need facilities to bring that equipment.  If they train our police and soldiers, then those trainers will not be 10 or 20, they will be thousands.”

In addition to fears that the nature of this deal would possibly push the Taliban away from any possible negotiations for peace, this deal has already been decried publicly by Iran, and privately by Pakistan.

Vladimir Putin will once again serve in the Kremlin as President of Russia, raking in an estimated 62% of the vote one day ago.  The closest competitor in the race was communist Gennady Zyuganov, bringing home around 17% of the votes.

Mr. Putin will enter his 3rd term (6 year term) .  He is returning after a 4 year gap where he served as prime minister under Dmitry Medvedev: who will now become Prime Minister.

However all is not well in the Russian Federation as opposition leaders have said that the result was marred by ballot-rigging and bribery.

The U.K. Daily Mail is reporting that Mikhail Kasyanov, Mr Putin’s former prime minister and now an opposition activist, said: ‘These elections are not free, that’s why we will have protests tomorrow. We will not recognise the president as legitimate.’

Even the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has unkind words about Putin, saying, “These are not going to be honest elections, but we must not relent.  Honest elections should be our constant motto for years to come.”

—

Every question asked seemed to be tinged with the inquiry “Are you conservative enough?”  It was obvious Gingrich and Romney were the two candidates under the most pressure to answer that question with authority.  Gingrich spent a large amount of his time invoking Reagan and defending himself against the “lobbyist” label.  Not surprisingly, Gingrich did his best to remind voters that he basically forced Clinton to sign welfare reform in the nineties…and also he is the smartest candidate ever in the history of Presidential primaries.  In case you didn’t know.  But in all seriousness, Newt is the smartest guy in the room and it always shows.  Newt’s issue on Thursday wasn’t could he convince voters he’s smart, but could he convince voters he is a true conservative.  The jury is still out on whether he did that or not, but now that he has attained “front-runner” status, Gingrich is seeing an increase in attacks on his conservative credentials.  I think he maintained in this debate.  He did not do anything to worry his supporters but I don’t think he made many new fans either.  As with the debate last Saturday night, Americans will need to decide if they are satisfied with a Debater-in-Chief, or do they want more when it comes to a Gingrich candidacy.

Ron Paul started out very strong.   As always, he is masterful in his understanding of domestic economics.  It’s the spending, stupid!  Ron Paul was on fire Thursday night until it came to the foreign policy segment.  Then Ron Paul said something about warfare vs. welfare in Washington and how Iran would be totally willing to play nice if we weren’t so bossy and suddenly you could hear crickets chirping.  Even Paulbots seemed slightly subdued by his answers.  Perhaps they knew that even with so much support for his ideas behind him, Paul always manages to sound like a kook to the general audience when he starts talking foreign policy.  I’m sure he lost no support at all.  Paul supporters are nothing if not loyal (read rabid).  However, with surging Iowa numbers in recent days, Thursday’s debate was a great opportunity for him to seize the lead.  This performance was not his best, and will most likely not contribute to an Iowa lead.  If anything, Paul proved that all Obama would have to do in a general election is bring up Iran and foreign policy and that would be the end of a viable Paul candidacy.

Santorum and Bachmann were definitely the most solid in terms of conservative principals on the debate stage.  Santorum gets Iran.  It’s a shame the MSM (and many on our side of the media spectrum as well) has labeled him as the “social conservative”. I believe that label keeps people from really hearing his valid and dire warnings about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.  Rick Santorum gets Iran.  Whether we vote for this man for President or not, that is something that more Americans need to be paying attention to.

Bachmann was also very solid.  In her home state of Iowa she seemed comfortable, relaxed and she looked fantastic.  Did you know that Bachmann is 55?!  I’ll have what she’s having!  Bachmann doesn’t garner much mainstream favor with her Midwest accent and her Evangelical brand of Christianity, but the woman knows her facts and she is smart.  If voters are looking for a true conservative, she’s one to look at.

Even Perry did well Thursday, looking much more comfortable and even applying a little good natured self-deprecation.  Perry has many other qualities to recommend him to the position of POTUS besides his debating skills.  In our desperation to find a formidable debate opponent to Obama I hope we don’t overlook other important qualities for a good GOP candidate.

Should I mention Huntsman? Ok, fine.  Jon Huntsman was there. He talked.  He said stuff. He talked some more.  I wish he would stop doing that.

As the debate season rolls on and Republican voters duke it out for their favorite candidates, the process becomes more and more frustrating.  People are beginning to express election fatigue already, and are frankly nervous about selecting the right opponent to Obama.  That’s understandable. I share those nerves.  However, Thursday’s debate should be heartening to conservatives.  Oh, the battle still rages, but when the underlying question of a national primary debate is “Who can prove they are the most conservative candidate?”, that is a win for conservatism in general.

Herman Cain is doing his homework, as always.  It’s one of the things I really appreciate about him as a candidate.  He is obviously weak on foreign policy and security issues.  Of course he is; he’s a business man.  He does not have the advantage of being privy to the tidbits of information and exchanges that result from working inside government.  Cain has to develop his foreign policy and domestic security stances just like the rest of us – by studying and employing old-fashioned common sense.  It puts him at a disadvantage, no doubt; but Cain has proven he is up to the challenge and he always seems to go into every debate knowing more than he did the last time.  Cain is what it looks like when a regular, average Joe runs for President.  Some people don’t like that, but I think its kind of neat.

This was the first debate that didn’t turn into the Mitt Romney show.  In fact, Romney probably got less camera time on Tuesday night than he has in any debate so far this year.  It was refreshing.  That being said, he (predictably) made the best use of every second. He was confident and assured in his answers.  Romney said nothing out of line or out of order or out of Romney.  Even his hair was on board. 

Maybe that is my problem with this debate.  It was predictable.  Everyone performed according to their character descriptions in the GOP Primary Field Handbook.  Cain was weak but adequate in his depth of knowledge on the subject.  Ron Paul gave his typical RonPaul-y answers about minding our own business as a nation and if we would just be nice to the terrorists they would stop hating us and leave us alone in peace.  Predictably there were more than a few Ron Paul fans in the audience.  Santorum stayed true to form: feisty, with a touch of whine but bolstered by his strong conservative stance on social and security issues alike.  Jon Huntsman was…there.  His daughters graced CNN with an appearance on the debate pre-show.  They were way more interesting than their father and they seemed like lovely young ladies.  I didn’t care for their lipstick, though.  The shade of red made me suspicious.  Rick Perry was just fine, but I always feel like I’m holding my breath when he speaks.  He seems like a nice man and I hate to see him struggle up there, which he does all too often.  But Tuesday he was fine.

Perhaps the only two people who really interested me in this debate were Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.  This was Newt’s first debate as a “front-runner” and it remained to be seen how his platform/performance would change in light of that.  It didn’t really change at all which is a good thing, I suppose.  Newt was simply Newt, the smartest (if not crankiest) guy in the room.  Newt knows his stuff…and Newt does not like gotcha questions.  For the most part I believe Wolf Blitzer behaved accordingly.

If anyone “won” that debate it was Michele Bachmann.  Bachmann has a seat on the House Intelligence Committee and she is obviously privy to some very sensitive information.  She knows what she is talking about and when Bachmann speaks on foreign policy, security and Obamacare she sounds more competent than any of her compatriots on the stage.  In fact, it infuriates me to hear people refer to her as an idot, a la Sarah Palin.  I don’t know how you can listen to her speak of the nuances of foreign aid and intelligence and conclude that she is dumb.  You may not care for her social stances or her tea party label, but the woman is wickedly smart and deserves respect for that.  I really feel we need a woman like Bachmann in the House for as long as possible, but if she were our President, I have no doubt she would fight for this country every day she was in office.

In the end, the predictability was my problem.  No one came out with anything new or different.  Everyone pretty much held the line on the stances they have developed throughout this process.  There were no surprises; besides a couple of small differences on withdrawing troops and securing the border the candidates pretty much in line with each other and the Republican outlook on such issues.  Except Ron Paul, of course…but there’s an “except Ron Paul” implied in every line I write about these debates.  I know, ultimately it is a good thing that there were no fireworks.  Its important for the people to see the candidates lay out their positions logically as much as possible.  Its good that they were predictable because it helps us feel confident about how they will behave in the general elections.  But it makes for boring television sometimes.  I admit, debate fatigue is setting in.  There are at least four more debates to go.  I think I’m going to need a bigger box of wine.

The debate will be hosted by CBS News and the National Journal. The focus of tonight’s event will be on national security and foreign policy.

What to Watch For:

Rick Perry will need to have a strong performance tonight to overcome a string of debate mis-steps. He also has little foreign policy experience which may come through this evening.

Newt Gingrich will most-likely come on strong keeping-up with his strong debate appearances throughout the year. The former speaker has polled above all other candidates in the area of the military and international crisis handling.

While his domestic policies are popular among Republicans, views differ on his foreign policy and national security stances. This could be a differentiating moment for Rep. Paul, positive or negative.

Herman Cain’s business experience may not help tonight. The 9-9-9 plan will probably show up somehow, but overall expect Cain to focus on his “peace through strength and clarity” foreign policy. Specifics have been light the few times he’s mentioned it in campaign speeches and his foreign policy views have not been the subject of any real media focus or debate questioning.

Mitt Romney led the pack in a recent CBS News Poll that asked which candidate is best-suited to be Commander-in-Chief. Among likely Republican primary voters, 26% chose Romney to Gingrich’s 21%. Cain and Perry were 11% and 9% respectively.

This may be the last debate that features the entire current cast of 8. Future debates will start limiting invites to those with a larger share of support. Expect Huntsman and Santorum to miss future debate appearances as their poll numbers have stayed consistently below 5%. Bachmann could fail to receive invites shortly after that if her numbers continue to hold right at or near the 5% mark.

Where to Watch: Here is the Recording of tonight’s debate – full-length (long blank pauses are commercial breaks, be patient or forward through to the next segment)

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace took a few minutes to have Rep. Paul tell voters how he would shape American foreign policy – specifically on Iran.

Keep listening past the Iran segment and you’ll also get to hear his thoughts on a third party candidacy.

WOW! Talk abort chutzpah! No mistakes, no mulligans needed (reference to his golf), no do-overs. It must be really nice to be this self-assured.

Let’s see. Can we bring up the Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), better known as Obamacare? “The health care bill that we passed is absolutely the right thing to do, but it’s going to take a while before it’s even fully implemented, much less taken full effect,” Obama said during the interview. “… absolutely the right thing to do …?” Richard S. Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, said that PPACA will result in cuts to hospitals that will jeopardize access for seniors, as well as costs that will increase from 2010 -2019, but after that may be savings later. Not mentioned in Foster’s report is another factor that will impact senior’s health care – decrease of access to primary care physicians (PCPs) as the many newly-insured patients complete for an already short supply of PCPs.

Actuaries for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) said that under PPACA the uninsured would decrease from the current 57 million to 23 million by 2019, with 21 million newly insured being insurance company exchanges, most of whom will receive healthcare and/or insurance coverage subsidies. These 21 million newly insured patients will be competing with the Medicare patients for what already is a shortage of PCPs. Reimbursements are generally about 30% lower for Medicare than private insurance. Diminished access to care for Medicare patients is a very likely outcome of PPACA.

And as of last Friday (October 14, 2011) Health and Human Services gave up on a major part of Obamacare, Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS), that was supposed to reduce the deficit by $86 billion.

Now let’s turn our attention to the economy. Unemployment is currently 9.1%. After an initial “stimulus” of $787 billion in 2009 (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]), government spending had no effect on the economy. We were told that the unemployment rate, if ARRA was passed, would not go above 8%. It has gone as high as 10%. The country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most often used measure of economic activity. In terms of real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) per capita (i.e. population-adjusted) GDP, the U.S. economy has declined at an annual rate of 0.29% since 2008, as compared to an annual growth rate of 1.15% during the eight prior years. Obama’s latest stimulus, the American Jobs Act (AJA), a $447 billion fiasco that even the Senate would not pass. He is now trying to sell it in small pieces. His track record on the first stimulus wasn’t very good, so why does he expect the second one to be any better?

Have I mentioned foreign policy? While he has made numerous faux pas, let’s limit this discussion to Israel. Obama called for a Palestinian state that should be focused on Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Not content with that, he was “less than gracious” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama, upset over Israel’s decision to approve Jewish construction in east Jerusalem, snubbed Netanyahu during his visit to the White House. The White House denied Netanyahu the red carpet treatment generally afforded to visiting heads of state. The Israeli prime minister and Obama didn’t pose for photos together, and Netanyahu was excluded from dinner with the president. When Netanyahu wouldn’t agree to concessions, Obama left a meeting with him, though he invited Netanyahu to stay at the White House, talk to Obama advisers and “let me know if there is anything new.”

I am quite sure that you can think of some additions. But for Obama to make the claim that ALL of his choices were correct shows him to be a completely arrogant narcissist.

But that’s just my opinion.